Jump to content
Server restart - 20/06/2019 Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Atankean

an offer that I could not refuse

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
199 posts
3,267 battles

Hi Captains,

 

I had an idle moment today where I thought about the whole CV Affair of the last weeks and I had a "Eureka" kind of moment.

 

Some of you may remember that I posted a thread a while ago, where I stated, that CVs will "never" work. Bold statement to be sure but I also provided the reason.

 

In short, I said that CVs will be impossible to balance because of one fundamental issue that completely "alienates" CVs to other type of ships (yeah, apart from them having planes instead of guns :) ). They do not take the same amount of risks that every other ship MUST take in order to be effective.

 

A CV can sail to the safest point on the map without losing more then some time between attacks. Any other ship will always risk its own health pool and therefore its "life" along with XP, Credits etc. while the CV will only lose one opportunity.

 

Now let us first play a little hypothetical "game".

 

What happens when "noob" players in a DD, CL/CA or BB make mistakes. Im talking about, going alone against a bunch of enemy ships, presenting broadside all the time, not maneuvering, not taking cover, not using consumables efficiently etc. hell, lets assume all of this together. Well in most cases, this player will be destroyed very quickly. Now most of us would say "he played like a noob, he got destroyed like a noob" right?

 

What happens when we have the same but this time with a very experienced Captain who knows what hes doing? He chooses his engagements wisely, he seeks and uses cover efficiently, he maneuvers and makes perfect use of Consumables and his ships strengths. When such a Captain has a great game and comes out on top of the list then most of us would say "yeah, he played good he scored good...gg".

 

Essentially what I am trying to say, regardless of balance or ship type etc. most of us are wise enough to judge good or bad performance accordingly and accept the results. This means that a bad player is "punished" enough to have an incentive to do it better next time and a good player is rewarded not only with good results but also with a sense of accomplishment and he is also "applauded" by his team for his good gameplay.

 

CV Captains however, dont have that luxury to the same extend. If a CV player is bad, then he does not get punished as severely as the other ship types, which often leads to the Captains thinking that the team must "suck" in some way. They learn less from their reckless actions. You can also find them in the forums crying about how bad CVs are. They will also ask for more and more buffs since they dont feel the effects of their bad play immediately they stick to the illusion that something must be wrong with their team, game, balance etc. (NOT saying that this can not be the case...so keep your pants on :) ).

 

More tragically even, if the CV Captains are good at what they are doing, they will not get the same amount of positive feedback like other ships. Simply for the fact that they did not really risk the same amount as other ships did. This in fact leads to the expectation of others in the team that a CV MUST perform well since it can try again and again and is seen as quite "natural". Successes in CVs can therefore lead to "less pleasure" then successes in other ship types.

 

Now the question, do you think if it would be possible to change CV in such a way that it would retain its current abilities (or get even better) BUT at the same time take the SAME risks of destruction as other Ships (especially for bad play) that they would be better accepted among the "community"?

 

My own answer to this question is Yes! absolutely.

 

This leads us to the main point of this thread (I know It took a while but I had to make sure to show what lead me to the following).

 

How to do this?

 

Simply put - Link Plane health with Carrier health -

 

When I first had this Idea, I thought it was stupid to be honest. Then, when I thought more about it, it started to make some sort of a "weird" sense. Basically what needs to be done is, the healthbar of your Carrier is an "Indicator" of some sorts of how many squadrons of planes you can use. It does not matter what type of planes you use or how many times you use them but if they take damage then this damage is deducted from your Carriers Health Bar.

 

So far so crazy but what happens when the "Indicator" reaches 0? well, the same that happens to every other ship, your Carrier makes "BOOOM" and sinks to the bottom. My inner voice at this point basically yelled at me "That is dumb, a CV that explodes without even seeing any enemy ships, what about immersion?". So I had to think about that as well and I came with a "somewhat" workable idea.

 

The thing is, once the "indicator" reaches 0 it effectively means that your CV is "deplaned" and as such useless. Since this is an all out War and a CV is way too valuable to fall into enemy hands, the crew boards the lifeboats and scuttles the ship so the enemy cant get their hands on it.

 

Another idea was that once the bar reaches 0 your ship simply sails out of the combat zone to the closest border and "vanishes".

 

The point is, this is a workable idea and one that would accomplish something that WOT could only dream of, It would turn "Artillery" into a "Tank" without changing its game mechanics too much.

 

Knowing that with every plane shot down we effectively "damage" the CV that is attacking us would give us the feeling that we can actually "fight back", which was always one of the major criticisms when it came to CVs.

 

CV players on the other hand, would finally have a solid argument why their ships need buffs, since now they would have joined the esteemed ranks of risk taking ships, they would have to be balanced accordingly. Also, good CV players would be rewarded for their skills with more attacks per game while bad CV Players would be punished with less attacks per game. Instilling a feeling of "Justice" not only with them but also with their teams.

 

What do you think about that idea? Have I lost it? or am I onto something here?

 

P.S. obviously, if such a change would be implemented, there would be a lot of adjusting work to do. So for now I would ask that you dont lose yourself in details. Such a change can not be implemented with a simple Hotfix naturally. Some things would have to be changed dramatically (such as how and when planes take damage from AA fire).

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles

Cool. So everytime I dodge shells from a BB I want that BB to lose hp too.

 

Sorry, this is entirely nonsensical.

 

Also it's predicated on the overused and false "carriers take no risk" nonsense.

 

There's ONE risk to joining a battle, which is that you might spend your time and get a poor result. And anything has to be seen in context of that "risk", not whatever redefined "risk" you like to pretend is there just because you think it gives you an easy way to trashtalk one ship class.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
8 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Cool. So everytime I dodge shells from a BB I want that BB to lose hp too.

Thanks for mentioning, I edited my main post accordingly. Obviously there would be a lot of work to do if such a change was to be applied. Especially to the way planes take damage and how much.

 

10 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Also it's predicated on the overused and false "carriers take no risk" nonsense.

I might need more info on this one because I can only talk from my own experience and so far the risks that CVs are taking are far below any other ship type. I also did not say that they take "no" risks. There is obviously always the risk to lose the match but that is a risk everybody takes and is not exclusive to CVs just like XP and Credit loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,487 posts
11,455 battles
59 minutes ago, Atankean said:

CV Captains however, dont have that luxury to the same extend. If a CV player is bad, then he does not get punished as severely as the other ship types, which often leads to the Captains thinking that the team must "suck" in some way.

Lolnope.

CV captains, if anything, are punished more severely. A DD that plays like a noob gets promptly deleted and goes to port with a strong impression that "noob team didn't support me". A CV that plays like a noob promptly loses all planes and then has 15 more minutes trying to launch a handful of planes at a time, still unable to do anything with LOTS of time to contemplate that maybe, just maybe, losing all these planes in the first five minutes was not the wisest thing to do and - perhaps - it was actually his fault (since other ships can't really support his planes, the only alternative to "I made a mistake" is "WG sucks and AA is overpowered").

Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about - because no class, and I repeat NO CLASS is as frustrating to play badly as a CV, PRECISELY because you don't die in the process. The equivalent would be if a broadside-showing battleship, instead of eating heavy damage, was usually punished with permanently losing 3-4 out of 4 turrets and having to play the rest of the match with just secondaries and maybe that one surviving set of main guns...

 

59 minutes ago, Atankean said:

They learn less nothing from their reckless actions. You can also find them in the forums crying about how bad CVs their preferred ships are. They will also ask for more and more buffs since they don't feel the effects of their bad play immediately attribute their failures to their own misplays, they stick to the illusion that something must be wrong with their team, game, balance etc. (NOT saying that this can not be the case...so keep your pants on :) ).

There, a couple small fixes and the whole thing is not just more true but also applies to the vast majority of bad (and most average, and many good, and some unicum) players of every class in the game. You're welcome :Smile_honoring:

 

Overall, you might be surprised, but your idea isn't actually new. Problem is, it's not a solution to the problem you describe - because the problem yo talk about (bad CV players not feeling the effects of their failures) doesn't really exist in the first place. They do feel the effects of their misplays. They might even feel them more than the other classes. Problem is that they suffer from the exact same "never my fault" syndrome as pretty much every other bad player (only they have the proportion between "WG sucks" and "my team sucks" excuses more skewed towards the former).

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEALX]
[SEALX]
Players
10 posts
4,636 battles

Sincerely, I think CVs would need itheir own special type of battle. CVs launched their aircraft at much longer distances, or accompanied convoys to give them air cover. Fighting in a several mile square box is bad enough for battleships, but much worst for carriers. Instead of all this carrier rework, I think WG could have designed additional scenarios and battle types, probably with less development effort and higher customer satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
3 minutes ago, Wandarra said:

Sincerely, I think CVs would need itheir own special type of battle. CVs launched their aircraft at much longer distances, or accompanied convoys to give them air cover. Fighting in a several mile square box is bad enough for battleships, but much worst for carriers. Instead of all this carrier rework, I think WG could have designed additional scenarios and battle types, probably with less development effort and higher customer satisfaction.

Well, that there would be a better solution all things considered but I am afraid that it is even more unlikely then what I suggest (and I have no illusions, its not gonna happen but hey, worth a shot :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
2,437 posts
24,624 battles
1 hour ago, Atankean said:

Hi Captains,

 

I had an idle moment today where I thought about the whole CV Affair of the last weeks and I had a "Eureka" kind of moment.

 

Some of you may remember that I posted a thread a while ago, where I stated, that CVs will "never" work. Bold statement to be sure but I also provided the reason.

 

In short, I said that CVs will be impossible to balance because of one fundamental issue that completely "alienates" CVs to other type of ships (yeah, apart from them having planes instead of guns :) ). They do not take the same amount of risks that every other ship MUST take in order to be effective.

 

A CV can sail to the safest point on the map without losing more then some time between attacks. Any other ship will always risk its own health pool and therefore its "life" along with XP, Credits etc. while the CV will only lose one opportunity.

 

Now let us first play a little hypothetical "game".

 

What happens when "noob" players in a DD, CL/CA or BB make mistakes. Im talking about, going alone against a bunch of enemy ships, presenting broadside all the time, not maneuvering, not taking cover, not using consumables efficiently etc. hell, lets assume all of this together. Well in most cases, this player will be destroyed very quickly. Now most of us would say "he played like a noob, he got destroyed like a noob" right?

 

What happens when we have the same but this time with a very experienced Captain who knows what hes doing? He chooses his engagements wisely, he seeks and uses cover efficiently, he maneuvers and makes perfect use of Consumables and his ships strengths. When such a Captain has a great game and comes out on top of the list then most of us would say "yeah, he played good he scored good...gg".

 

Essentially what I am trying to say, regardless of balance or ship type etc. most of us are wise enough to judge good or bad performance accordingly and accept the results. This means that a bad player is "punished" enough to have an incentive to do it better next time and a good player is rewarded not only with good results but also with a sense of accomplishment and he is also "applauded" by his team for his good gameplay.

 

CV Captains however, dont have that luxury to the same extend. If a CV player is bad, then he does not get punished as severely as the other ship types, which often leads to the Captains thinking that the team must "suck" in some way. They learn less from their reckless actions. You can also find them in the forums crying about how bad CVs are. They will also ask for more and more buffs since they dont feel the effects of their bad play immediately they stick to the illusion that something must be wrong with their team, game, balance etc. (NOT saying that this can not be the case...so keep your pants on :) ).

 

More tragically even, if the CV Captains are good at what they are doing, they will not get the same amount of positive feedback like other ships. Simply for the fact that they did not really risk the same amount as other ships did. This in fact leads to the expectation of others in the team that a CV MUST perform well since it can try again and again and is seen as quite "natural". Successes in CVs can therefore lead to "less pleasure" then successes in other ship types.

 

Now the question, do you think if it would be possible to change CV in such a way that it would retain its current abilities (or get even better) BUT at the same time take the SAME risks of destruction as other Ships (especially for bad play) that they would be better accepted among the "community"?

 

My own answer to this question is Yes! absolutely.

 

This leads us to the main point of this thread (I know It took a while but I had to make sure to show what lead me to the following).

 

How to do this?

 

Simply put - Link Plane health with Carrier health -

 

When I first had this Idea, I thought it was stupid to be honest. Then, when I thought more about it, it started to make some sort of a "weird" sense. Basically what needs to be done is, the healthbar of your Carrier is an "Indicator" of some sorts of how many squadrons of planes you can use. It does not matter what type of planes you use or how many times you use them but if they take damage then this damage is deducted from your Carriers Health Bar.

 

So far so crazy but what happens when the "Indicator" reaches 0? well, the same that happens to every other ship, your Carrier makes "BOOOM" and sinks to the bottom. My inner voice at this point basically yelled at me "That is dumb, a CV that explodes without even seeing any enemy ships, what about immersion?". So I had to think about that as well and I came with a "somewhat" workable idea.

 

The thing is, once the "indicator" reaches 0 it effectively means that your CV is "deplaned" and as such useless. Since this is an all out War and a CV is way too valuable to fall into enemy hands, the crew boards the lifeboats and scuttles the ship so the enemy cant get their hands on it.

 

Another idea was that once the bar reaches 0 your ship simply sails out of the combat zone to the closest border and "vanishes".

 

The point is, this is a workable idea and one that would accomplish something that WOT could only dream of, It would turn "Artillery" into a "Tank" without changing its game mechanics too much.

 

Knowing that with every plane shot down we effectively "damage" the CV that is attacking us would give us the feeling that we can actually "fight back", which was always one of the major criticisms when it came to CVs.

 

CV players on the other hand, would finally have a solid argument why their ships need buffs, since now they would have joined the esteemed ranks of risk taking ships, they would have to be balanced accordingly. Also, good CV players would be rewarded for their skills with more attacks per game while bad CV Players would be punished with less attacks per game. Instilling a feeling of "Justice" not only with them but also with their teams.

 

What do you think about that idea? Have I lost it? or am I onto something here?

 

P.S. obviously, if such a change would be implemented, there would be a lot of adjusting work to do. So for now I would ask that you dont lose yourself in details. Such a change can not be implemented with a simple Hotfix naturally. Some things would have to be changed dramatically (such as how and when planes take damage from AA fire).

Have you actually tried playing CV yourself??

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
5 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Did someone actually read that ?

Dont be ridiculous! everyone knows you only go to forums to read "oneliners"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
11 minutes ago, hgbn_dk said:

Have you actually tried playing CV yourself??

Counterquestion, was it really necessary to quote the WHOLE WALL OF TEXT, just to ask me that?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
2,437 posts
24,624 battles
10 minutes ago, Atankean said:

Counterquestion, was it really necessary to quote the WHOLE WALL OF TEXT, just to ask me that?

Well you wrote it... But have you played CV??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,421 posts
3,712 battles

There is one way of making cvs take roughly the same risks as other ships, and that is to introduce a limit on the aircraft operational range from the CV that is roughly on par with similarly tiered long range ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
2,437 posts
24,624 battles

Okay... You know a good CV player don't surf the corner most far away from the battle??? So yes there is a very potent risk of getting blapped by a BB... It just takes a few seconds being spotted from the other CV while relocating to a safer position. Or a DD going the flank and chase you down.. Not only is the DD better concealed but also really hard to kill after last hotfix..

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
18 posts
628 battles

while i really like using CV (aircraft carriers) both before+after the redesign of the game, but i find Atankean's replies on this thread to be the best part of the whole thread...

 

awesome replies, good sense of humour, and a nice flair of creativity, despite the technical issues of his CV's HP suggestions.

stay awesome, Atankean!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
23 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

There is one way of making cvs take roughly the same risks as other ships, and that is to introduce a limit on the aircraft operational range from the CV that is roughly on par with similarly tiered long range ships.

thought about that too but could not come up with a workable range that would not end in "failure". Either it was too much so the change would have little to no effect or too short in which case CVs would become unplayable. Its an idea but I have a hard time with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
22 minutes ago, hgbn_dk said:

Okay... You know a good CV player don't surf the corner most far away from the battle??? So yes there is a very potent risk of getting blapped by a BB... It just takes a few seconds being spotted from the other CV while relocating to a safer position. Or a DD going the flank and chase you down.. Not only is the DD better concealed but also really hard to kill after last hotfix..

I am well aware of that and I may have failed to make it obvious enough but actually I want good CV captains to be rewarded MORE then they are right now. However, for more rewards to be justified, the other players must at least think that a CV is "in the action" with them and shares the same risks. That way they would have less problems recognizing good CV players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
199 posts
3,267 battles
24 minutes ago, chris_von_dude said:

awesome replies, good sense of humour, and a nice flair of creativity, despite the technical issues of his CV's HP suggestions.

I might be humble but even I cant resist such nice compliments. So you dont mind if I just take em? :) Thanks Chris.

 

Besides, to survive in this day and age in any forum, you need a thick skin and a good portion of Humor. We might not acknowledge it but we are all in the same boat, rowing towards the same goal (which ultimately is a grave but dont let that get you down, you hear me ;) ).

24 minutes ago, chris_von_dude said:

stay awesome, Atankean!

I will if you promise to do the same!

 

P.S. the technical issues with the HP and balancing in general would indeed be a Nightmare...but thankfully it would be WGs Nightmare ..not mine :Smile_veryhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,067 posts
8,084 battles

I feel like people focus way too much (not only in this thread but in many others before) on the relative safety of the CV player's ship.

 

When I'm sitting in a Midway with a fat total of 6 planes at my disposal, halfway through the game, I guarantee you I don't feel "unharmed". The feeling is just about the same as in a cruiser after receiving a triple citadel hit.

 

The total health pool of the planes is the more relevant factor than the hull health.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RBMF]
Moderator
491 posts
6,713 battles

Hiya, I've cleaned up the thread. Please remember to be positive, constructive and stay on topic. Thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
1,582 battles
Il y a 54 minutes, Uglesett a dit :

There is one way of making cvs take roughly the same risks as other ships, and that is to introduce a limit on the aircraft operational range from the CV that is roughly on par with similarly tiered long range ships.

After reading this twice, and filling the blanks :

"add limited range on aircraft to force CV to go near frontline and thus take risks".

I won't comment on that until I have sorted this out - meaning I'm not for or against the idea. but I sincerely hope you don't expect aircraft range to increase significantly with tier, otherwise either we have unlimited plane range or Tier 4 CVs should better begin to rely on their secondaries.

 

 

That, or tier 4 Cvs should be fitted with this kind of officer :

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.ea40820ff4b767946c2d5bd3a0da2074.png

 Which could be pretty hilarious, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,436 posts
8,137 battles
29 minutes ago, bratisla_boy said:

After reading this twice, and filling the blanks :

"add limited range on aircraft to force CV to go near frontline and thus take risks".

I won't comment on that until I have sorted this out - meaning I'm not for or against the idea. but I sincerely hope you don't expect aircraft range to increase significantly with tier, otherwise either we have unlimited plane range or Tier 4 CVs should better begin to rely on their secondaries.

 

 

That, or tier 4 Cvs should be fitted with this kind of officer :

 

  Hide contents

image.thumb.png.ea40820ff4b767946c2d5bd3a0da2074.png

 Which could be pretty hilarious, actually.

Which again, brings the question why bring glass box with few PewPewKanones into melee instead actual battleship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
[BHSFL]
Players
1,842 posts
6,051 battles
5 hours ago, Atankean said:

Simply put - Link Plane health with Carrier health -

 

 

Sorry for that rather rude remark of mine but your text was really long winded.

 

I do not like the idea for the reason i actuallly use my CV and it's secondary guns as a fighting ship. Wouldn't like to be blown up for having used all my aircraft.

 

In end games i often go cap unopposed - but there could be a heavy damaged DD lurking and i still have a chance my secondaries will kill him on sight - caps and contribute  to winning by that,

 

In operations i am often very agressive with the ship actually using the fact that is has secondary guns that in my case from captain points and ship upgrade got  >5 km range and noticably better accuracy then stock.

 

The Lexington with 12 x 127 mm to each side already killed 2 DD in random matches that got too close. Very important to me because strike fighters were nerfed to an extend they cannot save the CV from DD that managed to come close to it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRUMP]
Players
106 posts
15,924 battles

I think the suggestion is worth the consideration.

Balancing the amount of damage will not be easy, but it absolutely makes more sense than the current "impossible to deplane CVs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
62 posts
7,343 battles

I,m complete agree WG must search the solution in this kind of ways. It,s not right that Aircraft carriers are all alive at the end of a game, it,s totaly unreal. 

The biggest threat for a fleet is and always will be a enemy CV and instead CV captains go for a enemy CV they go for DD,s or isolate targets. This gameplay is no fun for the CV,s because they not gain much points in this way but it,s also no fun for the other players because CV,s influence their playstyle to much. In my opinion WG must find a impuls to keep CV,s busy with eachother in the first 10 minutes from a battle so other shipstypes can develop as usual a battle. 

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×