A case for reducing airspeed of all carrier bomber planes

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

I want to make a case for slowing down the airspeed of all carrier bomber planes. I think slowing bomber planes down will adress a few core issues I see with the current carrier rework.

 

The main issue I see

 

A major problem in the carrier rework I see is a heavily skewed risk vs. reward scheme for carriers compared to the other ship classes in the game. Carriers hardly ever have to risk their ship willingly to reap great rewards. And with the loss of the manually controlled fighter planes and the new strong automated carrier ship defenses, carriers lost their primary counter: other CV's. I think carriers should be operating closer to the rest of the fleet risking exposure of their ships. Carriers can be pressured into higher risk ship positions by lowering the airspeed of bombers. This change can deepen carrier strategies and makes the carrier ship itself an core factor into carrier risk-reward play.

 

One simple change that might optimize the risk-reward play for carriers is to reduce the airspeed of all bomber planes.

 

Increasing the risk vs. reward ratio

 

1. The reduction of airspeed will greatly lengthen the current flight time to target areas (enemies, front line, objectives)
2. Long fight distances will result in ineffective carrier DPM and force carriers to shorten the flight times to target
3. By positioning the carrier ship closer to the target areas they can shorten the time it takes to get planes into action
4. Positioning carriers closer to target areas will increases risks to the carrier ship
5. The greater risk of being targetted forces carriers to seek positions that are controlled and protected by friendly ships

 

Furthermore I think that slower airspeed will adress a few other key issues.

 

DD harassment

 

Carriers can target enemy DD's (high priority targets) in 0.8.0 at low risk and cost and at an unprecedented pace (harrassment). Lowering the airspeed of carrier bombers can correct this skewed risk reward ratio.

 

1. A Carrier can still track and target a DD but at a slower pace and rate
2. Due to the longer target aquiring time, the cost of tracking a DD is increased (carrrier will be able to aquire a key target but can't do other damage during time it takes to aquire that target)
3. After unloading its ornaments onto the target DD, if the carrier decides to recall its planes to get a fresh set of planes onto the target, the carrier is forced to forfeit target aquirement for a longer period due to the slower speed of the new squad
4. The DD can use this down time to relocate/escape/retreit
5. When returning to the last known position the carrier is forced to re-aquire the target DD and start the prcoess at point 1 again
6. Perma spotting a DD will come at a cost: the carrier is unable to farm any direct damage after unloading its current ornaments while perma spotting a DD. Only spotting damage can be aquired if teammembers are in the area.

 

End game power creep

Currently carriers are often among the healthiest ships at the end stage of a game round resulting in unbalanced endgame battles. It is vital to level the playing field at that stage as much as possible. Reducing airspeed of bombers might help with that.

 

1. Slower air speeds of bombers will force carriers to be closer to their targets and expose their ships to damage in earlier stages of a match
2. Carriers will more likely suffer permanent ship damage during the coarse of the round
3. Carriers will enter the end stage of a round more vulnerable, leveling the playing field to their surface ship counterparts
4. Due to the lower airspeed of bombers, carriers will no longer be able to spam bomber squads at a high rate unless they are within gunrange of most surface ships (high risk - high reward)
5. Carrier DPM will decrease if the player chooses to increase the distance to it's enemies (flee: low risk - low reward)
6. Carrier DPM will increase if the player decreases the distance to it's opponents (attack: high risk high reward)

 

There's more to it, but I have to get back to work. Shoot 

[El2aZeR]

Wanna know what the problem with this is?

Slow planes are painfully boring to play with especially on larger maps.

 

This might not sound like a big deal but remember that the goal of the rework is to make CVs more popular and keep them popular. You won't achieve that by making them boring.

[veslingr]

17 minutes ago, Europizza said:

I want to make a case for slowing down the airspeed of all carrier bomber planes. I think slowing bomber planes down will adress a few core issues I see with the current carrier rework.

 

The main issue I see

 

A major problem in the carrier rework I see is a heavily skewed risk vs. reward scheme for carriers compared to the other ship classes in the game. Carriers hardly ever have to risk their ship willingly to reap great rewards. And with the loss of the manually controlled fighter planes and the new strong automated carrier ship defenses, carriers lost their primary counter: other CV's. I think carriers should be operating closer to the rest of the fleet risking exposure of their ships. Carriers can be pressured into higher risk ship positions by lowering the airspeed of bombers. This change can deepen carrier strategies and makes the carrier ship itself an core factor into carrier risk-reward play.

 

One simple change that might optimize the risk-reward play for carriers is to reduce the airspeed of all bomber planes.

 

Increasing the risk vs. reward ratio

 

1. The reduction of airspeed will greatly lengthen the current flight time to target areas (enemies, front line, objectives)
2. Long fight distances will result in ineffective carrier DPM and force carriers to shorten the flight times to target
3. By positioning the carrier ship closer to the target areas they can shorten the time it takes to get planes into action
4. Positioning carriers closer to target areas will increases risks to the carrier ship
5. The greater risk of being targetted forces carriers to seek positions that are controlled and protected by friendly ships

 

Furthermore I think that slower airspeed will adress a few other key issues.

 

DD harassment

 

Carriers can target enemy DD's (high priority targets) in 0.8.0 at low risk and cost and at an unprecedented pace (harrassment). Lowering the airspeed of carrier bombers can accomplish this skewed risk reward ratio.

 

1. A Carrier can still track and target a DD but at a slower pace and rate
2. Due to the longer target aquiring time, the cost of tracking a DD is increased (carrrier will be able to aquire a key target but can't do other damage during time it takes to aquire that target)
3. After unloading its ornaments onto the target DD, if the carrier decides to recall its planes to get a fresh set of planes onto the target, the carrier is forced to forfeit target aquirement for a longer period due to the slower speed of the new squad
4. The DD can use this down time to relocate/escape/retreit
5. When returning to the last known position the carrier is forced to re-aquire the target DD and start the prcoess at point 1 again
6. Perma spotting a DD will come at a cost: the carrier is unable to farm any direct damage after unloading its current ornaments while perma spotting a DD. Only spotting damage can be aquired if teammembers are in the area.

 

End game power creep

Currently carriers are often among the healthiest ships at the end stage of a game round resulting in unbalanced endgame battles. It is vital to level the playing field at that stage as much as possible. Reducing airspeed of bombers might help with that.

 

1. Slower air speeds of bombers will force carriers to be closer to their targets and expose their ships to damage in earlier stages of a match
2. Carriers will more likely suffer permanent ship damage during the coarse of the round
3. Carriers will enter the end stage of a round more vulnerable, leveling the playing field to their surface ship counterparts
4. Due to the lower airspeed of bombers, carriers will no longer be able to spam bomber squads at a high rate unless they are within gunrange of most surface ships (high risk - high reward)
5. Carrier DPM will decrease if the player chooses to increase the distance to it's enemies (low risk - low reward)
6. Carrier DMP will increase if the player decreases the distance to it's opponents (attack)

 

There's more to it, but I have to get back to work. Shoot 

if they slower the planes they will increase ALPHA....and believe me you do not wanna that. We will be back to one shooting things every 4 minutes.

Change was made to CVs to do steady low figures in higher frequency than to do masive alpha every 4 minutes......in 2018 t10 dds could pull every 5 minutes 40 k dmg strikes in one pass.....onneshoting everything except BBs

 

so no it is bad bad suggestion

[Culiacan_Mexico]

32 minutes ago, Europizza said:

I want to make a case for slowing down the airspeed of all carrier bomber planes. I think slowing bomber planes down will adress a few core issues I see with the current carrier rework.

Adjusting CV spam rate of planes has merit.

[Sargento_YO]

I used to go to the frontline with my carrier, worked quite well in tiers 5 - 7. Something which I can't do anymore since now I can't control the ship and the planes at the same time. Hence, I need to move the ship far away from the battle. Something I really hate.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

30 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Wanna know what the problem with this is?

Slow planes are painfully boring to play with especially on larger maps.

 

This might not sound like a big deal but remember that the goal of the rework is to make CVs more popular and keep them popular. You won't achieve that by making them boring.

I do consider boredom a big deal. I am not proposing tediously slow planes, but slower planes to the current 0.8.0 speeds, especially at high tiers. Consider it a natural decrease of it's action radius, much like gun range on other ships.

 

40 minutes ago, veslingr said:

if they slower the planes they will increase ALPHA....and believe me you do not wanna that. We will be back to one shooting things every 4 minutes.

Change was made to CVs to do steady low figures in higher frequency than to do masive alpha every 4 minutes......in 2018 t10 dds could pull every 5 minutes 40 k dmg strikes in one pass.....onneshoting everything except BBs

 

so no it is bad bad suggestion

I am not proposing a 4 minute flight time and an Alpha buff 

[veslingr]

5 minutes ago, Europizza said:

 

I am not proposing a 4 minute flight time and an Alpha buff 

i know, but you can not just nerf their DMG cause it is not excessive, not a single number (even period is low) suggest that. So for DMG part of equation we need more time, right now in average cvs do LESS dmg than before

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

12 minutes ago, Sargento_YO said:

I used to go to the frontline with my carrier, worked quite well in tiers 5 - 7. Something which I can't do anymore since now I can't control the ship and the planes at the same time. Hence, I need to move the ship far away from the battle. Something I really hate.

Absolutely, direct carrier control should be available in one way or another if you want players to actually move their carrier ships closer to target area's. Alternating carrier and plane control isn't rocket sience. Switch to carrier control: the planes idle or follow a pre set path, switch to bombersquad control: the carrier idles or follows a pre set path.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

45 minutes ago, veslingr said:

i know, but you can not just nerf their DMG cause it is not excessive, not a single number (even period is low) suggest that. So for DMG part of equation we need more time, right now in average cvs do LESS dmg than before

I agree, I don't think the average damage output overall is an issue that needs adressing. Lowering the airspeed of bombers will lower damage output if a carrier player keeps his carrier ship at the same distances as now. They can increase their DPM by manouvring their carrier ships closer to the area's they target shortening flight times to target drastically. By doing this they will risk exposing their carrier ship, not only their planes. This requires more planning and can add a layer of strategy to carrier ship gameplay. Carriers will have to look for the best locations to send their carrier to in order to balance flight time, cover and safety. Just like surface ships have to balance gun/torpedo range, cover and safety.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

Balancing CVs has to make both sides happy. Non-CV players and CV players.

 

All I want at this stage is less RNG in AA and general fixes for OP carriers.

I want to be able to know the values ... not some RNG flak DMG. The things I learned in years of playing WOWs regarding AA can be flushed down the toilet at this moment.

 

Also I would like to see return of countdown at the start of the battle before CV can launch its first squad.

Currently CV has its planes in the enemy cap within 10-20 seconds... scouting the enemy team even before BBs sailed 1km. We need some "fog of war" ... at least on the beginning of the match.

DDs cant even make it half way to the cap without having planes shooting rockets at them. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

[SeaWolf7]

1 hour ago, nambr9 said:

Balancing CVs has to make both sides happy. Non-CV players and CV players.

 

 

 

Currently CV has its planes in the enemy cap within 10-20 seconds... scouting the enemy team even before BBs sailed 1km. We need some "fog of war" ... at least on the beginning of the match.

DDs cant even make it half way to the cap without having planes shooting rockets at them. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

Agreed m8, see this all the time atm. Had an enemy plane group hit our map boarder yesterday right after the start of the game lt took him roughly 80 seconds to cover the entire map length and he was already on a return flight. 

Looked like he was testing that very same idea.....

[Beastofwar]

Slower planes would be slaughtered by FLAK. Cannot happen unless nerfs to AA no one wants, or aircraft with the constitiuon of A10 Warthogs.

[ApocalypseMeeow]

Easy, Flak don't have to shoot down aircraft (only), but can also mitigate accuracy as before 8.0.

So e.g. higher spreads for torpedoes, which enable ships to evade some/all easier. Than the single torpedoes/bombs can hit a bit harder.

 

Regarding "boredom" Every ship has to maneuver in the first minutes and to enjoy the beautiful view. Ships have to wait for a reload of 30sec (BB) up to two minutes( DD-Torps). At least the planes have a more beautiful view... A reduction of aircraft Speed of 10-15% could be acceptable, IMHO.

[XueLong]

Sure you can lower down the airplane speed while adressing the AA at the same time by nerfing them accordingly for example.

But then for CV players it will be boring AF.

Since WG owns the opinion that WoWS players are too dumb to control more than 1 element or 1 ship, you lost the RTS aspect, where slower plane speed was fine, cause you were managing your carrier and multiple airplanes squads simultaneously. - And now getting the 1 plane action-simulator.

Lower plane speed = boring AF = ppls will leave.

 

The whole CV rework is a mess and absolutely destroyed the fun aspect for both CV and DD players.

They shouldve stayed with the overall CV = strategic control & scouting for team playstyle and finetuning it. As it was pretty well balanced over the years already, every player in their ship roles knows what to do (although manual control over AA would be a great addition, cause it provide ship captains an active element they can control to fight against plane attacks), and represent the original intention of CVs during the wars the best way.

[BLUB__BLUB]

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Wanna know what the problem with this is?

Slow planes are painfully boring to play with especially on larger maps.

 

This might not sound like a big deal but remember that the goal of the rework is to make CVs more popular and keep them popular. You won't achieve that by making them boring.

I've found some funny stuff.... scaring the sh... out of my teammates. 

Found a friendly Omaha  just sailing around... put the divem bombers on him... 

Of course I didn't launch anything but what they performed was sort of a low-pass-flyby... LOL. 

 

I think the solution is to VARY PLANE FLYING ALTITUDE. This:

- they can fly faster at high (cruising) altitude (above clouds), but they will not spot anything;

- they can fly lower, but will be exposed to flak, and they can spot there.

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 hours ago, nambr9 said:

Balancing CVs has to make both sides happy. Non-CV players and CV players.

 

All I want at this stage is less RNG in AA and general fixes for OP carriers.

I want to be able to know the values ... not some RNG flak DMG. The things I learned in years of playing WOWs regarding AA can be flushed down the toilet at this moment.

 

Also I would like to see return of countdown at the start of the battle before CV can launch its first squad.

Currently CV has its planes in the enemy cap within 10-20 seconds... scouting the enemy team even before BBs sailed 1km. We need some "fog of war" ... at least on the beginning of the match.

DDs cant even make it half way to the cap without having planes shooting rockets at them. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

I agree. A 'Preparing air group' countdown timer for carriers at round start is a very valid suggestion. We have simular timers for many functions on other ships, so players are already used to it. Players are used to loading guns, loading torpedoes, countdown timers for consumables etc. In fact I think it could be valid for launching new air groups in general. Launching a plane squad takes as much if not more time as loading a large caliber gun. There is no reason to step away from loading timers for the Carrier class.

 

A 'Preparing air group' countdown timer at round start combined with a slower airspeed might very well balance the startup of the match vs. destroyers. We just have to make sure planes and destroyers can get to the centre line of the map in a straight line at roughly the same time.

 

34 minutes ago, XueLong said:

Sure you can lower down the airplane speed while adressing the AA at the same time by nerfing them accordingly for example.

But then for CV players it will be boring AF.

Since WG owns the opinion that WoWS players are too dumb to control more than 1 element or 1 ship, you lost the RTS aspect, where slower plane speed was fine, cause you were managing your carrier and multiple airplanes squads simultaneously. - And now getting the 1 plane action-simulator.

Lower plane speed = boring AF = ppls will leave.

 

*snip*

We haven't talked about the amount of speed reduction much yet. You can't state that any reduction of the current speed wil be instant boredom. Seasoned carrier captains were used to slower speeds and players of other classes like battleships are also used to slow traverse speeds. The point of the speed reduction is not to make flight times longer and more boring, it is to pressure carrier captains to move their carrier ships closer to the front line so their flight distances become shorter. When players get used to that that there will be zero extra flight time, just added risk to their ships.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, ApocalypseMeeow said:

Easy, Flak don't have to shoot down aircraft (only), but can also mitigate accuracy as before 8.0.

So e.g. higher spreads for torpedoes, which enable ships to evade some/all easier. Than the single torpedoes/bombs can hit a bit harder.

 

Regarding "boredom" Every ship has to maneuver in the first minutes and to enjoy the beautiful view. Ships have to wait for a reload of 30sec (BB) up to two minutes( DD-Torps). At least the planes have a more beautiful view... A reduction of aircraft Speed of 10-15% could be acceptable, IMHO.

I think a 'cruise speed' (as current) would be OK, but they'd fly 'above the clouds' so would not be able to spot anything (except what their teammates have spotted).

Only if they fly low (attack/spotting altitude) they could spot but this would have a penalty: speed reduced, and vulnerable to AA. 

 

1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

Slower planes would be slaughtered by FLAK. Cannot happen unless nerfs to AA no one wants, or aircraft with the constitiuon of A10 Warthogs.

That's the whole idea, actually. Risk-free slaughterers should go try a bowling game.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, Europizza said:

Absolutely, direct carrier control should be available in one way or another if you want players to actually move their carrier ships closer to target area's. Alternating carrier and plane control isn't rocket sience. Switch to carrier control: the planes idle or follow a pre set path, switch to bombersquad control: the carrier idles or follows a pre set path.

I think it is absolutely stupid they took direct control away. Here's the most stupid thing though:

BECAUSE even if you have the direct control, you can STILL use the map-pointers, if you do not want to use direct. 

[AirSupremacy]

I find the squadron flight speed feeling one of the best points of the CV rework, especially using the turbo boost "Afterburner" is soooo much fun.

Im fine with balancing changes like reducing the planes restock speed, having a fixed number of planes, implementing a fuel gauge ( reducing the range and limiting flight time, speed/fuel consumption control ), double the flak etc.

 

IMHO Having thrilling flight speed and having no plane launch wait time are two great fun factors, compared to the old system.

Happy WoWs everyone :)

 

P.S. - Great idea !

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

...

I think the solution is to VARY PLANE FLYING ALTITUDE. This:

- they can fly faster at high (cruising) altitude (above clouds), but they will not spot anything;

- they can fly lower, but will be exposed to flak, and they can spot there.

 

1

[CptBarney]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Wanna know what the problem with this is?

Slow planes are painfully boring to play with especially on larger maps.

 

This might not sound like a big deal but remember that the goal of the rework is to make CVs more popular and keep them popular. You won't achieve that by making them boring.

If you had your way the planes would be playing a minigame of teihou, watching them fly at the speed of light while dodging an insane amount of projectiles 

[VeryHonarbrah]

As mentioned above, the changing of the speed makes it more boring, since its a longer wait before action. The argument that cvs should be with the fleet works in principal with competent team players, however, relying on random teams to screen you from surface ships is suicidal. I do agree with the risk vs reward issue. Before the rework, the risk was you being completely deplaned, and there fore useless. I think that the reload time and the replenishment time of planes should be great increased, the ability to just spam planes at the speed is just crazy. Finally, maybe to balance the spotting of ships, AA range and the detectability from the air should be made the same, this would actually mean there is a risk for just permanently spotting a ship, instead of doing so with no risk to the planes.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 minutes ago, VeryHonarbrah said:

As mentioned above, the changing of the speed makes it more boring, since its a longer wait before action.

Well, the current speed is just unacceptable. 

So, a cruising speed to target area would be acceptable but not the attack speed, AA simply doesn't work and it leads to 'F-spamming'. 

Think why this is not such a problem in low tiers: the planes are slow as hell. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, VeryHonarbrah said:

The argument that cvs should be with the fleet works in principal with competent team players, however, relying on random teams to screen you from surface ships is suicidal.

Well duh. But you see your team, and take your chances. If you have a few ships between you and enemy, there is a risk.

But it is the same risk if I decide to support a few DDs and CLs in my BB. If they receive 'sudden death' then I am alone and vulnerable.

You take the risk, and get the advantage - OR you sit at the rear and have no risk, but have the disadvantage. 

 

3 minutes ago, VeryHonarbrah said:

I do agree with the risk vs reward issue. Before the rework, the risk was you being completely deplaned, and there fore useless. I think that the reload time and the replenishment time of planes should be great increased, the ability to just spam planes at the speed is just crazy.

THAT is not the problem. The problem is that spamming gets you 100% healthy planes back. 

Increasing 'reload time' is not gonna fix it. Slower planes IS gonna fix it, more time to let AA work the planes over.

 

3 minutes ago, VeryHonarbrah said:

Finally, maybe to balance the spotting of ships, AA range and the detectability from the air should be made the same, this would actually mean there is a risk for just permanently spotting a ship, instead of doing so with no risk to the planes.

I was thinking this too - and also, have 'cruising speed + altitude' where planes are fast, but do not spot

and have 'attack/spotting speed' at low altitude where they can, but also can get hit by AA.

 

[Beastofwar]

When stating ""aircraft are too fast" you do know you only mean tier 10 aircraft, possibly tier 8 to some extend ? Try tier 4 and say it again......you will be well asleep before you squadron finally gets there at ~ 80 knots.

 

I mean the whole rework mechanic cannot be just nerfed because of tier 10 gameplay issues. They will have to look at WHAT squadrons are too fast, too accurate, too powerful and so on. Same goes for bringing hellfire to DD they hate so much. While all i see isn't that effective that outcrying is warranted. But i dont play at tier 10 !

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AirSupremacy]

Wow, 80 speed - Is it glider planes ?

Can wait to ply again on the weekend :)

[VeryHonarbrah]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 3:55 PM, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, the current speed is just unacceptable. 

So, a cruising speed to target area would be acceptable but not the attack speed, AA simply doesn't work and it leads to 'F-spamming'. 

Think why this is not such a problem in low tiers: the planes are slow as hell. 

 

 

Well duh. But you see your team, and take your chances. If you have a few ships between you and enemy, there is a risk.

But it is the same risk if I decide to support a few DDs and CLs in my BB. If they receive 'sudden death' then I am alone and vulnerable.

You take the risk, and get the advantage - OR you sit at the rear and have no risk, but have the disadvantage. 

 

THAT is not the problem. The problem is that spamming gets you 100% healthy planes back. 

Increasing 'reload time' is not gonna fix it. Slower planes IS gonna fix it, more time to let AA work the planes over.

 

I was thinking this too - and also, have 'cruising speed + altitude' where planes are fast, but do not spot

and have 'attack/spotting speed' at low altitude where they can, but also can get hit by AA.

 

Addressing point by point: The cruising speed to a target area is a good idea. I think a reduction of the attack speed would help. From the hot fix notes, the F spamming is gonna be fixed. Low tier cvs overall are a mess   I still cant agree with the CV moving with the fleet, relying on your team mates positioning and to cover you just doesn't work with the player base.  A long reload time on the setting up of the planes would help, I am not talking about a 10-20 sec delay, I am talking about a delay based on how many planes are lost, repairs needed for the planes, re-arming of the planes, and switching plane types. With maybe a potential reload of upto 1.5mins, maybe during this down time, a secondary function of the cv can be done, i.e flying a spotter plane, or a boat plane, that can cap or put out a little area heal, or maybe a fighter squad to help cover allies. It would make CVs more utilitarian.