Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
artic_99

Cv rework suggestions

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[_DMP_]
Players
651 posts

Hello folks, 

As many others as well I believe that 8.5 made cvs unplayable. But instead of bitching around I want to share my thoughts with anyone who wants to discuss the topic constructively. 

In order to make cvs a fun experience for everyone. I want to say this in advance I am open for any feedback and criticism from anyone because I am no game developer and my suggestions can be flawed. So my main points would be:

1. Give the cv a time delay for spotting like there is for radar. 

This first change would decrease early spotting as well as the damage a ship would take while being under cv attack simply because the fleet can't see the target. (dds would benefit the most) 

2.Remove rockets

Rockets are too strong against dds and too easy to use against them. By removing them the cv players would have to focus on bbs and cruisers. (dds would benefit greatly) 

3.replace rockets with other type of bombs. 

This is important because the cv should keep at least some power VS dds. A Japanese cv is not able to fight dds without rockets so it needs he bombs to fight against them effectively. It would still be much harder to hit the dd but it would not be impossible. I mean under normal circumstances a cv player would not go after dds but if he's under attack by a dd he could defend itself. The American and UK cvs would get ap bombs to compensate for the missing rockets. (rockets could also be a feature of the t8 UK premium cv) 

4.Reset Aa to pre 8.4

I believe aa was most balanced in 8.4 so far. It was funny but not too easy for cvs in 8.4. There are many ships that would need tweaking in the one or other direction in terms of aa but most ships are balanced. In general most low tier ships would need buffs and some high tier boats would need nerfs. But pls 8.5 aa is too frustrating because it takes out the rng part and you cant avoid heavy losses (deplaning way too quickly) . That makes the 8.5 system so frustrating. It is comparable to a situation in which it's guaranteed that a cv always makes 25k dmg if its attack comes through. 

5.take out the slingshot exploit. 

Due to the slingshot exploit aa was easily avoidable and that's why the whole system didn't work. A fun system which is enjoyable for everyone and challenging as well would be the optimal solution. 

 

PS: pls wg don't remove that thread because I want to open it as a constructive platform to discuss solutions for the cv issue that may help you out. I want to make it easy for you(WG) to get a basic overview of suggestions for your game to make the game better for all of us without forcing you to read the already existing thread which has continously proven itself as a place for players to rant about the issue instead of focusing on solving the cv issue at hand. I hope you can understand this and I hope that you(wg) actually consider some of those ideas to create a better game for all of us. 

 

Thanks for reading this in advance:) 

 Best regards one concerned player of all four classes. 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LO1]
Alpha Tester
1,481 posts
6,083 battles

lower the air detect of DD's shorten the attack a little for rocket/bombs... they still will find the DD in the end, but more time and effort will be required and makes it a little easyer for the DD's to jink in to a diffrent direction.

 

Also if you shorten the arm and attack run, CV's will find it harder to sling shot on to targets!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,463 posts
8,604 battles

Ok.

 

The Update 0.8.5 was Great in my Eyes.

AA Finally Feels like its actually doing Something.

And with my CVs I finally have the feeling that I am actually making Decisions on Good and Bad Attack Opportunities instead of just Bombing the Crabs out of whatever Ship I please.

So this was the Biggest Improvement for the CV Rework for the entirely of the last 6 Months.

 

But.

It also caused some new Problems. (Well when doesnt it) And didnt Fix certain other Problems.

CVs with Large Squadrons, Large Reserves or Fast Plane Regeneration. Are Still mostly Unaffected by AA and dont care about this Change. Because losing 1 or 2 Planes on a Weaker AA Ship is not really Changing the Games Numbers for them.

At the same Time. CVs with Small Squadrons, Small Reserves or very Slow Plane Regeneration. Are Suffering Disproportionaly from the Change. Because for them it really Hurts when even lesser AA Ships Suddenly Start costing them a few Planes on each Attack. Even if its just 1 or 2 Planes each Attack. As they dont have the Reserves for this.

 

 

So Here is a Suggestion.

 

How about we Introduce Accuracy to Damage Ticks. Giving them a Base Chance of missing (assuming they dont have one yet)

And then add a Factor to this Base Chance based on how many Aircraft are Currently in the Targeted Squadron.

 

So For example.

We have a Ship which has

200 Damage per Tick Close Range.

500 Damage per Tick Mid Range.

300 Damage per Tick Long Range.

 

Now we give each of these a Base Accuracy and a Base Squadron Size.

 

The Close Range AA is Usually MGs. As such it wont be Affected by Squad Size. Because its mostly Fast Firing Weapons Aiming for a Sepcific Aircraft.

So it gets a Base Accuracy of lets say 90% and a Basis Aiming Squad Size of 3-12 Planes. So it will only lose Accuracy if there is 2 or less Planes in the Squadron. And only Increase Accuracy when the Squadron has 13 or more Planes.

(Meaning most of the Time it wont be affected and will Stay with its base Accuracy)

 

The Medium Range AA will be Affected Significantly. Because its AA Consisting of Medium Range AA Guns that are mostly Firing in Cross Denial into the Path of Aircraft meaning more Aircraft Increase their Chances to Hit one.

So it gets a Base Accuracy of lets say 80% and a Basis Aiming Squad Size of 6-9 Planes. So if there is less than 6 Planes in the Squadron. The AA will become less Accurate. Maybe 10% per Plane. Meaning if only 1 Plane is Left it will only Hit 30% of its Ticks.

If however there is more than 9 Planes in the Squadron. Then for each Additional Plane the Accuracy is Increased by 5% so a 12 Plane Squadron for Example will mean that 95% of the Ticks will Hit.

(This will not only Reduce Losses for Small Squadrons and thus Help CVs with Small Squadron Sizes to actually get through AA. It will also Increase Chances that a few Aircraft of a Retreating Squadron still make it Back Out of an Attack. Because as the Squadron Size Dwindles the Few Remaining Aircraft get harder to Hit. Thus also Helping CVs with Small Reserves to Recycle some more Planes out of Attacks.)

 

And Finally Long Range AA. This will be Completely Affected by this. Because these are mostly Heavy AA Guns Aiming at a Squadron instead of a Plane in the First Place.

So it gets a Pretty Bad Base Accuracy of lets say only 60% And a Base Aiming Squadron Size of 5 Planes. For each Plane above 5 it gets a 5% Accuracy Buff. While for each Plane below 5 It gets a 10% Accuracy Debuff.

So a Squadron with 4 Planes would only be hit 50% of the Time. While a Squadron with 12 Planes would be hit 95% of the Time.

(This will especially make it Easier for CVs with Few Planes to not Take losses just from Skimming around the Edge of AA Ranges as they try to find a Target. While at the same making it harder for CVs with Large Squadrons to Line of Shots into Blobs as they will have Higher Losses before they get into Bombing Range)

 

(of Course all the Values are Purely for Explanation Purposes. And will need to be Adjusted for each Ship and Tier Accordingly)

 

 

 

These Changes would Reduce the Advantage that CVs with Large Reserves and Squadrons have Currently. Thus making them less Overpowered.

While the CVs with Small Reserves and Small Squadrons. Which after this Update Suffered a Heavy Blow and Partially maybe too much of a Blow.

Would be Buffed a Bit as they take less losses and get more Aircraft Back after Attacks.

 

Edit: Merged from another topic

Excavatus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,183 posts
11,250 battles

Ladies and gentelmen, I've cleaned up this thread, and moved most of the posts back into CV discussion.

On the other hand, as some of you mentioned many times,

a lot of good sugesstions are falling into the huge cracks in between looong personal conversations in CV rework thread.

So, we decided to keep this one, to collect suggestions for CV only.

 

Please remember the following,

  • Suggestions only... that means NO DISCUSSION of the suggested ideas.
  • Don't post the same thing over and over again!
  • Please keep your "Remove CVs" suggestions to yourself.
  • Don't reply to people If you are about to tell them either "Good idea" or "bad idea"

To keep this thread fresh, civil and clean it will be heavily moderated!

 

If you wanna discuss ideas posted here, take them into quotes and bring them to the main discussion topic.

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

Save the Destroyer: Unique "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable Proposal

Destroyers versus Carrier Aircraft need help. This proposal in aimed to do exactly that: save the Destroyer from Carriers, but within REASON.

 

Goal of the proposed change:

Give all Destroyers a dedicated defensive "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable that remains active for X minutes and respawns destroyed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" during that time frame. This will enable Destroyers to capture a zone at game start and fully protect themselves from enemy Aircraft Carriers for a limited amount of time.

 

Reason for the proposed change:

Destroyers are the ships that normally capture zones and they need special protection to at least enable them to capture ONE zone, especially when their fleet does not protect them from enemy Aircraft. If the Destroyers of a fleet fail to capture a zone at the start of the match due to enemy Aircraft, then that usually also decides the outcome of the match. That is very bad for game play. The proposed Consumable should allow every Destroyer to capture at least one zone even when facing an enemy Aircraft Carrier.

 

This is to be a new and a unique "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable, for Destroyers ONLY, that works very different from the "Fighter Squadron" Consumable that currently exists in the game.

 

The Characteristics of the proposed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable change:

 

  • It is a consumable that is only available to all Destroyers at all Tiers that face a Carrier and the Consumable is only available to a Destroyer when they are in a match with enemy Carriers (if not then it is hidden).

 

  • It can only be used once per match for X amount of minutes.

 

  • The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of two parts: one on-map, one off-map.

 

  • The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of a single Fighter Patrol Squadron, consisting of X Fighter Aircraft, that flies at low altitude above the Destroyer in a circle pattern (like the existing "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does). The on-map part "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" can be spotted, damaged and destroyed by enemy Aircraft and enemy AA/Flak because they fly at low altitude.

 

  • The off-map (very high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that will replace the on-map (low altitude) Fighter Patrol Squadron if it is destroyed. This replacing takes place X seconds after the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron is destroyed.

 

  • The off-map (high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that fly at very high altitude above a Destroyer and thus above the range of enemy Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Flak/Fighters. They are not visually represented on the map and mini map, they cannot spot and they cannot be attacked nor can they attack.

 

  • The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable has a radius that is 25% LARGER that than of the current best Fighter Squadron in the game.

 

  • When enemy Aircraft enter the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" circle, the on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" will move in to attack them, like the current "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does.

 

  • If the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable is destroyed it will be replaced by a full Hit Point Fighter Patrol Squadron that travels down from very high altitude to low altitude within X seconds after the last on-map Fighter Patrol aircraft was destroyed.

 

  • The on-map and off-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable cannot spot. That simulates that there is no direct communication between the Destroyer and the Fighter Patrol Squadrons, like usually was the case in real life in WW2. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable can spot only for itself, but cannot share data on what it spots with the Destroyer and the fleet.

 

It is advisable to combine this "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" with the "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" that is described in the post directly underneath this one.

 

edit: post merged from a seperate thread

Excavatus

 

 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

Simplified Balance: An AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft Proposal for Tier 8-10

 

Goal of the proposed change:

Create a manageable balance between the Tier 8 and 10 Carrier Aircraft and the AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Make it easier to balance the Aircraft and AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10 by limiting the variations.

 

Reason for the proposed change:

Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft to a degree seem to be still able to inflict crippling damage to Tier 8, Tier 9 and 10 ships, even those that have some of the best AA/Flak in the game. At the same time Tier 8 Carriers mostly play between 55 to 70% of their matches at Tier 10. The AA/Flak concentrations of Tier 9 and 10 ships can be so severe that playing at Tier 9 and 10 is too player unfriendly for Tier 8 Carriers. This proposal is meant to address both issues, in other words to equally help Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers at Tier 8, 9 and 10.

 

Proposed change:

 

  • Decrease the effectiveness of all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft by lowering the BASE Hit Points of all Tier 10 Aircraft to a maximum of 1200 for Rocket Bombers and 1400 for Torpedo and Dive Bombers. That lowering would include Tier 10 Aircraft on Tier 8 Carriers (including Premium Carriers). These maximum numbers can be raised by Commander Skills and Upgrades like is now also the case but they would still remain CONSIDERABLY below the current Tier 10 Aircraft base Hit Point levels.

 

  • Introduce a NOMINAL and EFFECTIVE AA/Flak Damage Per Second and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships.

 

  • The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates the theoretical maximum values the ship has. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CAN BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades.

 

  • The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates what effective maximum values the ship can use in combat. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CANNOT BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades.

 

  • The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING for Tier 9 and 10 ships would be equal to the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING of the highest base AA/Flak rated Tier 8 ship (for example the Tier 8 Battleship MASSACHUSETTS).

 

  • The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling would be used by all Tier 9 and 10 ships till the point is reached where so many AA/Flak mounts of a Tier 9 or 10 ship are destroyed that the NOMINAL CEILING is lower than the EFFECTIVE CEILING. In that case the EFFECTIVE CEILING is no longer used, but the damage reduced NOMINAL CEILING is used instead.

 

It all sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is.

 

Here are two examples of how this works out:

 

  • For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP.

 

  • A Tier 10 MINOTAUR with Commander Skills and Upgrades has a NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of 100. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of that MINOTAUR would be only 77 (equal to base of MASSACHUSETTS). So the AA/Flak DPS and Damage would be EFFECTIVELY only at 77 and not at 100. The MINOTAUR would keep that 77 EFFECTIVE ceiling until her AA/Flak mounts would be destroyed to a point where the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS would be below 77. When the NOMINAL CEILING due to damage drops below the EFFECTIVE CEILING the NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. So if the MINOTAUR loses so many AA/Flak mounts that her NOMINAL CEILING drops from 100 to 56, then the EFFECTIVE CEILING would also drop to 56.

 

It is advisable to combine this "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" with the "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" that is described in the post directly above this one.

 

edit: merged from another topic.

Excavatus

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS2]
[BOBS2]
Players
529 posts
19,906 battles

Two ideas; one that I posted in the general suggestions thread and one that I almost posted in the “unplayable!” thread before thinking better of it.

 

First (repost) idea was to do with spotting and was a thought prompted by a book by a Seafire pilot where one chapter dealt with his squadron acting as artillery spotters for warships firing in support of the D-Day landings and opening battles of the Normandy campaign. This demonstrated two things, firstly that (at least for coastal bombardment) single seat fighters could direct the guns of cruisers and battleships towards a target and secondly that they couldn’t do that while under attack (and embarrassingly for the RAF one of the things that attacked them was a group of Spitfires, who managed to not notice that what they were attacking was almost identical to what they were flying).

 

So the idea was that although I’d retain aerial spotting for all planes I would add an extra factor of how distracted the aircrews are by other things such as being shot at or by trying to carry out their own attacks. The level of distraction a squadron is suffering would be displayed as a bar that would empty and fill and change colour with the changes and as they became more distracted the spotting information provided to other ships would degrade from normal to minimap only to none.

 

The distraction caused by the squadron making an attack run would be a fairly constant percentage across tiers and types of plane as what the aircrew are doing has also remained fairly constant. The distraction caused by the fighter consumable would also remain fairly constant for the same reason, though three fighters might provide a little more distraction than two and four a little more than three. But the values for how easy a type of plane is to distract by AA would vary based on the number of crew and the tiers. With a multi-seat plane the pilot could be concentrating on dodging while another crewman continued to observe and relay information, but with a single-seat plane the pilot would be having to try to do both and would likely prioritise not getting shot down. And the variation between tiers would be needed because of how much AA power increases; if the values weren’t tweaked then it would either be too easy for a high-tier ship to prevent any spotting or too difficult for a low tier ship to at least get itself to minimap only.

 

The fighters of the fighter consumable would also be arbitrarily easy to distract to prevent the carrier player from using them as effectively to keep things spotted while there are either no player-controlled planes in the area or while those planes are distracted by making their attack runs. This would also affect ships’ fighter consumables though, so taking a spotter plane would have the benefit of it being harder to distract as well as the range-increase and the elevated view for firing at ships in smoke.

 

In practical terms the aim would be to balance it so that heavy AA could prevent spotting, moderate AA could prevent spotting when combined with either the planes making their attack or fighters attacking them, and light AA could prevent spotting when combined with both those things. With the mini-map only spotting being one step down, moderate AA alone could make it this and light AA would need one of the other things. However what counts as heavy, moderate, and light would take some work to determine. I’d say a good baseline would be for a destroyer with good AA to have a chance of becoming mini-map only, especially against the single-seat rocket-firing planes, and even one with mediocre AA might become zero-spotting while the pilots are busy trying to aim.

 

The other idea was one on an alternative for the AA continuous damage. It does annoy me, even as a potato, that Wargaming seem determined to stamp out any last vestigial elements of skill. Before the recent change there was at least some element of judgement and chance in a carrier player trying to manage his squadron’s health; do you risk another attack run or not? If the damaged planes get hit then you could lose more than it’s worth, but if the undamaged planes take most of the damage then the losses might be acceptable ones. But with the damage being focussed on one plane at a time there's no gamble involved, you will lose X amount of planes to X amount of AA so your decision would always be the same one.

 

So what I’d have done would be to take the random-targeting and add a weighting for how damaged a particular plane was. Initially the AA would act the same as the previous system but as soon as a plane took damage it would have a slightly higher chance of taking more damage, and as planes took more damage this chance would increase.

 

To put it in terms of numbers, though these are for example rather than something final, the previous random system would be picking a number between one and eight for an eight plane squadron. What I’d propose would be that it would be picking a number between one and eighty with each plane starting with ten of those points, so they’d start with the same one-in-eight chance of being hit. But each hit they took would increase their points and the total points by two, to a maximum of eighteen points just before they were destroyed. So if one plane took every hit then the chance it would take the next one would be getting on for close to double the chance that hit would strike one of the undamaged planes.

 

Or perhaps make it non-linear; each hit adds more points than the last one did, which would be a simple way of simulating gun-captains noticing a plane is wounded and trying to finish it off. This is the sort of thing where the infamous spreadsheets would be very useful in letting you enter different values for how much to start with and how much to add at each hit and see how the degree of focus-fire varies.

 

In practical terms the aim would be to keep some of the ability to gamble and make another attack run, but stack the odds a little more against the carrier player being able to soak the damage with his undamaged planes. More focus-fire than the random system, but less focus-fire than the “hey, we broke a skill and a consumable” target-last-plane-only system.

 


 

EDIT: The thought occurred to me that as the game keeps track of individual plane health and total squadron health it might be better to use the same structure for the chance-to-hit, but with the effects of damage reversed. So the squadron-health and chance-to-hit would initially be identical duplicates of each other, but when a plane takes damage its health and the total squadron health would go down by that much and its hit-chance and the total of all the hit-chances would go up by that much.

 

Or go up by that much times something; fiddling with numbers and having things go up and down by the same amount does seem about right, but multiplying it by something could let you fine-tune it. And although this fine tuning could be just used in general terms you could also use it to let different ships have different values to reflect how a ship with fairly inaccurate AA would find it harder to focus a particular plane than a ship with accurate AA guns would.

 

Using the same structure for both things would have two advantages.

Firstly it would be a smoother increase in how much more likely a plane is to be hit than what I suggested above, where I was thinking in terms of “undamaged, lightly-damaged... etc.” and incrementing things in stages.

Secondly if you are using the same structure for both things then you can use the same functions, or slightly modified versions, to alter the values within the structure or to truncate the structure when a plane gets shot down or when an attack run’s planes go home and those are no longer part of the calculation.

 


 

tl:dr 1 - Have planes able to be distracted by making their attacks or by being attacked, and have that affect the degree of spotting they can provide.

tl:dr 2 - Make damage semi-random, rather than random or last-plane only, with the likelihood a plane gets hit increasing as it takes more damage.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BPC]
Players
132 posts
6,145 battles

I would like to suggest the fighter consumables to fly in a 8 pattern instead of a full circle. The top and bottom should be the same distance approximately as the current circle. 

 

Reason:  currently you can risk it to fly in while the fighter plane is at x degrees of the circle, being mostly ineffective at most times. Making it go in an 8 pattern would focus the fighter more on the ship it is from giving it quicker protection. 

 

This would give more of a challenge for the cv to determine the right moment to attack and the right angle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,417 posts
20,468 battles

Instead of tampering with HP how about just rolling back the plane speed nerf?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
242 posts
4,008 battles

Hmmm.... do this, reduce squads to one attack wing + 2 planes, give planes 2x HP, increase plane speed by 25% ! 

And planes only report spotting in a 10km radius,  but minimap position as normally 

 

Rough guess,  but think this would be a step in the right direction 

 

Ofc change the sector system,  has to go,and instead of now,  a AA burst that increase dispersion to max for 5sec for DD, 3 for CA and 1,5 for BB, 1 min cooldown 

Maybe some extra dmg 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
793 posts
2,038 battles

I decide to bring some real life system into this: all planes have a “radio range” which would works in the same way as the WOT radio system. It would only relay the ship information to all ships within a specific range of the squadron(say 10-15km) (can include carrier if needed) to represent the limited radio range of real life. Anyone further than this range will only be able to see the ship on the mini-map(no rules against blind firing though,but who cares)

48 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Instead of tampering with HP how about just rolling back the plane speed nerf?

Sounds good in the current state of AA, where all continuous damage is focused on one plane. Or shift some of the continuous damage back into the flak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
793 posts
2,038 battles

Just noticed something: base service costs of cvs are higher then same tier ships:

56B553FE-B342-4790-A328-C43E1D85DC62.thumb.jpeg.c872b8fe44e1814afe64523e259fcc64.jpeg

propose to change device costs so it matches same tier ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,183 posts
11,250 battles

One more time ladies and gentelmen.

This is for suggestions. If you continue to discuss the ideas here, I'm afraid this thread will turn into another CV discussion thread.

and meet its inevitable death with a lot of similar CV threads.

 

On the other hand,

There is a very thick line between giving sugestions and full blown trolling.

Even though you can say you were giving sugestions about the CVs, that won't save you from being sanctioned.

 

Take this as a final warning.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BPC]
Players
132 posts
6,145 battles

Suggestion:

 

Manual secondary skill being unlocked for the Cv. 

 

Reasons:

-CV has no guns on itself to control only the planes which at secondary range can be a bit of a pain considering they need a distance to ascend to battle altitude first. 

-would give limited control over the ships functions which would allow a saver feeling for the Cv causing the CV to take more risk to get closer to a battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,216 posts
7,161 battles

1) REWORK faqn AA - it sucks!!!

 

2) as a start: make AA target random planes and stop AA to shoot through mountains and reduce AA DPS

 

3) give CVs a “transmit Recon” button with a Cooldown but infinite charges. This button lets the team see what the CV sees for a period of time 

 

4) leave the reserve of the strike squad where you started your attack rather than follow (to be tested for TBs at least)

 

5) make AA DPS progression less steep - otherwise uptiering sucks (and the other way round doesn’t work either)

 

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,109 posts
12,576 battles

Suggestions: 

 

- Roll back 0.8.4 AA system. The 0.8.5 AA system has far reaching implications that have nerfed CVs too hard and in a way that is practically unbalancable, through the nature of the rework. 

- Consider "dropping immunity" if the 0.8.5 system is to persist. That is, a CV should be allowed to drop all payload, but any aircraft shot down during this period will be virtually shot down only, meaning they will be depleted from the reserve. In this way a CV can get deplaned- which is rather easy in 0.8.5, but at least you can get your attack runs off. IMO shouldnt be done, since its a very weird concept, but its a fix to the insane performance purge that 0.8.5 introduced. 

 

- Aircraft that have dropped have to instantly become invulnerable to AA again in this system. 

- Just make a way to negate slingshotting other than blanket nerfing CVs all around. 

- Reset the speed nerf. 

- Scrap the SE buff, we don't want that. We want actual solutions. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,216 posts
7,161 battles

7) give AA shots an RNG based accuracy like secondary guns and abolish this dull numbers game the aura concept is. Captain skills could come into play to apply modifiers to the accuracy 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
413 posts
2,233 battles

Change to AA sector mechanic:

 

Divide AA stats into three categories:

Range - The maximum and minimum range for each AA zones (light, medium, heavy)

Damage - The total damage of the AA zones as well as the accuracy.

Disruption - The effect of the AA zone on enemy plane aiming (how much it slows the planes targeting reticule size decrease) and effects drop distance (the distance the munition requires to arm/ height at which you are forced to break off attack)

 

And then use these stats to create 'stances' for AA guns to be set to. Stances consist of a major and minor stat component with the major being the  category which is the focus of the stance and the minor being a weaker stat boost from another category that supports the major stat in certain aspects based around what the stance is trying to do (eg. kill more planes, disrupt the air strike etc.)

 

So for example, stances could be:

 

Offence

Major - Damage

Minor - Range

 

Stance acts like the current reinforce sector mechanic, albeit with a lower % damage boost but instead provides an increase to AA accuracy and 1km maximum range boost. (from the minor component)

 

The downsides to this stance are no disruption on airstrikes and damage is spread across the whole squadron (pre 8.5 AA style)

 

Defense

Major - Disruption

Minor - Damage

 

As the name suggests this stance is aimed at disrupting incoming airstrikes by interfering with the planes accuracy as well as limiting their attack window/ forcing them to drop munitions from a greater distance.

The minor component is aimed at limiting the time planes can lurk in your AA radius by increasing your AA accuracy although as it is the minor component it doesn't boost the damage of the AA, this makes your AA hit more consistently and thus reducing the time planes can hang around before loses become too severe for the squadron to be effective, although accuracy boost is significantly less than that gained from the Offensive stance.

 

The downside to this stance is that your AA gains no range boost and it relies mostly on player ship handling skills to be effective as your less likely to shoot down planes outright due to no damage boost meaning more of the attack is likely to get through to you.

 

Support

Major - Range

Minor - Disruption

 

Designed to support allied ships, this stance boosts the maximum range of your AA guns by 2 - 3km while also decreasing minimum firing range by 1km to allow easier covering of allies and earlier interception. The minor component allows your AA to slow the accuracy gain on attacking aircraft although it won't interfere with drop distances and the slowing is significantly less that that generated by the Defensive stance.

 

Downsides are no damage or accuracy boosts although this is somewhat offset by planes being in the AA auras for longer and this stance ignoring retreating aircraft (those that are returning to carrier)

 

 

When using the reinforce sector system for AA, you pick which stance you want to activate and the side of the ship it will cover. the system then works exactly as the current system but with the stance bonuses being applied to the reinforced sector instead of flat damage.

 

The side that hasn't been reinforced loses damage on it's AA (same as current system)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

Looking at what I proposed for the RTS Carriers in 2018 the SPOTTING SOLUTION A  proposal would still be useful today:

 

SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A)

Carrier Aircraft can only spot enemy ships for their own Carrier and they can not spot enemy ships for the entire friendly fleet. In other words whatever the Carrier Aircraft spot is only visible to the Carrier Commander that owns the Carrier Aircraft. This is not unlike for example the current "Radio Location" Commander skill which also only indicates the direction of the nearest enemy ship to the player that has a ship Commander with "Radio Location". This solution will solve the problem that Destroyers that rush to a Capture Point at the start of a match are constantly spotted by Carrier Aircraft and consequently then targeted by the entire enemy fleet. The CARRIER SHIP itself of course will still be able to spot ships just like all other ships only the spotting by CARRIER AIRCRAFT is proposed to be changed.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

This solution I also proposed for the RTS Carriers in 2018, today it would also still be useful:

 

INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION

When an enemy ship uses its AA Fire it should be spotted by the Carrier Aircraft it fires on, even when it is in smoke BUT it should then only be visible to the Carrier and not to the entire fleet that the Carrier is part of. Just like the "Radio Location" Commander skill that only indicates the position of the closest enemy ship only to the player that has a ship Commander that has the "Radio Location" skill. For new and novice Carrier Commanders, and even for experienced ones, it is often times impossible to notice than a hidden enemy ship is using its AA against Carrier Aircraft. As a result ships with strong AA setups like MINOTAUR, DES MOINES, WORCESTER can totally destroy a full Squadron before the Carrier Commander has had the time to get it out of range of that hidden ship. That means that especially new and novice Carrier Commanders, but even experienced ones too, have no player friendly visual indication that warns them that their Aircraft are going to be destroyed in about 2 seconds unless they withdraw them out of range of the hidden enemy ships. Currently all ships in WOWS get a clear visual indication that they are being fired upon in the form of shell tracers, but the Carrier Commander currently gets no clear unmistakable visual warning that his very limited amount of Carrier Aircraft are about to be destroyed in about 2 seconds by AA from a fully hidden ship. The proposed solution increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) and addresses the imbalance of passive not human controlled AA invisibly eliminating the active human controlled Aircraft of a Carrier Commander in about 2 seconds.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

And this solution I also proposed for the RTS Carriers in 2018, today it too would still be useful:

 

DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION

All Tier 6-10 Destroyers will receive the Destroyer type "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable. This solution will protect Tier 6-10 Destroyers from Bombers during the first 5 critical opening minutes of a match when they rush forward to capture a sector without the help of friendly Cruisers and Battleships. Highly skilled Carrier Commanders currently can too easily take out the all important Destroyers in the first 5 minutes of the match which in most cases already decides the outcome of the match. This solution increases the "comfort level" of Destroyer play (especially for new and novice players) in WOWS.

 

I prefer the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons Consumable" Proposal (described in this topic a few posts above this one) over the "Defensive Fire AA Consumable for Tier 6-10 Destroyers" Proposal in the current state of the game where there can be more than one Carrier in the enemy Fleet though.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

GIVE THE GRAF ZEPPELIN her Aircraft launch procedure from the Catapults BACK that she had until version 8.0

Since the GRAF ZEPPELIN Catapult launching sequence was already implemented before version 8.0 of WOWS was rolled out, it should not require TOO much of an effort to have the current GRAF ZEPPELIN Aircraft use it as well.

 

If I can find the time for it I will make a better post to illustrate what I mean by this remark, but for the time being this will have to suffice:

 

- The Tier 8 German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN in real life was unique in that all her Aircraft would not take off on their wheels from the back of Flight Deck like on contemporary Carriers, instead they were  "fired off" by very powerful Catapults from the front of the Flight Deck that could launch even heavily loaded bombers at speeds well above stall speed in a matter of seconds. No other Carrier of WW2 had such powerful Catapults, no other country was able to build and perfect them during that time frame. The British navy first used Catapults with this kind of capabilities in the early 1950s and thereafter the US Navy (using a Catapult that was based on the V1 Catapult) copied that idea from the British Navy.

 

 

- The GRAF ZEPPELIN in WOWS up till version 8.0 in WOWS saw all her Aircraft launch from her two Catapults in game, that was both authentic and really beautiful to watch in-game. Since version 8.0 that Catapult launching sequence is gone, it would be authentic to bring that back into the game. Currently the GRAF ZEPPELIN has her Aircraft take off from the Flight Deck on their wheels without using the Catapults like on conventional WW2 Carriers, but this would (A) not have been possible at full load with the Bomber Aircraft that GRAF ZEPPELIN has and (B) would NEVER have been done because the Kriegsmarine designers (Hadeler et al) of the GRAF ZEPPELIN Class were DETERMINED to use the Catapults for launching Aircraft to allow the Carrier to do three things at the same time: launch from the front of the Flight Deck, process in the center of the Flight Deck and recover Aircraft at the rear of the Flight Deck (what no Carrier of WW2 could do, the British and US Navy only introduced this in the 1950s). The Catapults are one of THE key design elements of the GRAF ZEPPELIN that makes her so different and far ahead of her time compared to contemporary Carriers of her day. This Catapult concept was only introduced on British and US Carriers in the 1950s, but it was ONE OF THE KEY design principles for the 1936 GRAF ZEPPELIN.

 

Image: Ju 87 C-1 being launched from Catapult on GRAF ZEPPELIN (pre version 8.0):

 

flfCPvD.jpg

 

Image: Me 109 T-1 being launched from Catapult on GRAF ZEPPELIN (pre version 8.0):

 

g8xHid9.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts

ALLOW FULL PLAYER CONTROL OF THE MAIN GUNS OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WHEN IN HULL MODE

In those cases where an enemy ship comes within firing range of the MAIN GUNS of an Aircraft Carrier it would be both fun and conditionally useful to allow the Carrier player to have FULL CONTROL of her main guns. Some Aircraft Carriers had quite powerful ship-to-ship gunnery armament and some even were designed to be able to operate alone and defend themselves with their main guns from enemy Destroyer Flotillas, like for example the Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN. Allowing the Carriers in WOWS to use their main guns IN DIRECT PLAYER CONTROL WHEN IN HULL MODE would be fun and it would add functionality to Carriers that already exists in WOWS (player controlled gunnery). This functionality would be conditionally useful for Carriers. For example in those cases where the up-tiered Carrier has lost so many of her Aircraft that she cannot launch more than 1-3 Rocket Bombers to defend herself against a nearby enemy Destroyer. Giving Carriers FULL PLAYER CONTROL of their main guns would be authentic, fun and conditionally useful. The guns of the Aircraft Carriers would have to have appropriate caliber Cruiser main gun ranges to be useful, and thus not Battleship secondary gun ranges. For most Carriers in WOWS that would mean having their main gun ranges equal to those of Cruisers of the same Tier, same caliber and same nation. The main guns of a Carrier would be under AI control when the Player is in Aircraft Control Mode and would be under Player control when the Player switches to Hull Control Mode.

 

EDIT: Another example of when this is useful is if there is an enemy ship (Destroyer or Cruiser) that skillfully stays just outside the range of the secondary/tertiary guns of a Carrier and hidden in smoke. The Carrier Commander then cannot fire back because his Aircraft cannot spot the target, and he has no control over his main guns and their range has been nerfed to the short secondary gun ranges of Battleships in WOWS. By allowing full player control of the main guns of a carrier and giving them the same range as the same caliber Cruiser guns of their nation, the Carrier player at least would have SOME way of fighting back in such a situation. Especially in end game scenarios where a Carrier can have few if any Aircraft left. Next to that it would also add an element of fun, additional functionality and actual ship control to Carrier play.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,463 posts
8,604 battles

Simple Suggestion.

Allow us to Command Spotter and Catapult Fighter Planes.

 

When a BB Starts a Spotter Plane or Catapult Fighter. He currently just Circles above.

 

This is mostly useless because the CV can Wait out Catapult Fighters and while the Spotter might give Range to reach a CV the CV is not spotted.

 

So Allow us to give these Planes simple Commands using the Strg Key.

(Same Key thats used for Commanding Secondaries to a specific target)

 

Holding Strg and Clicking on a Plane or Squadron will Command your Catapult Fighter to Attack that Squadron.

Thus chasing it away or causing damage to it.

Holding Strg and Clicking on an Spot in the Icean will Command your Plane to there and Spot.

 

Catapults as they only hold 60 Seconds of course wont go far if you send em to spot.

But could still be commanded to move to for example intercept enemy Aircraft.

 

Spotter Planes should also get a Survivability Bonus and Fly at higher Altitude so they dont get instantly Shot down if they get in AA Range.

 

 

 

This would give Surface Ships some Counterplay Options against CVs.

Especially in later Game.

Share this post


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

×