General CV related discussions.

[Aixin]

Vor 23 Stunden, BLUB__BLUB sagte:

Don't worry masterrrrr I have 2nd place in EU with Ark Royal, someday I will manage to fai;ldiv into T10 with it and then I'll kill him. 

OH my you degenerate. That Leigh is one was clear before but you too??? @

On a serius note are you actually enjoying Ark royal? Cuz I find her not very enjoyable due to the slow planes...

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

Can we get the panic effect of DFAA back? 

 

 

[Puffin_]

5 hours ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

Can we get the panic effect of DFAA back? 

 

 

It is a panic effect now. 

When you realize DFAA is doing nothing. 

 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

54 minutes ago, Puffin_ said:

It is a panic effect now. 

When you realize DFAA is doing nothing. 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

22 hours ago, Aixin said:

OH my you degenerate. That Leigh is one was clear before but you too??? @

Yeah man, I have no life so he must have a twin that also has no life... I'll catch up with him though... 

 

22 hours ago, Aixin said:

On a serius note are you actually enjoying Ark royal? Cuz I find her not very enjoyable due to the slow planes...

Yes I enjoy it. I find it a challenge to do well in. Due to the slow planes. But I also enjoy games like chess...

In fact I think it is one of the best "balanced" CVs. Ships have time to react, they usually avoid torps.

It is slow, if you need to get back to a ship that used DCP after you set fire you usually can't. 

DDs can actually outrun your torps... or swerve to avoid rockets. 

 

The slow planes also mean you have to avoid zig-zag quite a lot of FLAK. More chance to screw it up.

And while you are doing that, the ship can re-align or whatever. A challenge. 

[Blogaugis]

On 10/17/2020 at 3:22 PM, LoveZeppelin said:

I agree, there is no reason to have the actual CV on the map. (other than for premium sales).  But I think we can be more radical, and say that "if one loses the squadron, the player is out of the game, sunk, spectator or back to port," just as when a player loses a ship. No replacement squadron(s). Obviously, squadrons would need a slight revision to afford them as much survivability, as for example, a dd.

Removing the actual CV from the equation, while keeping a remnant of player controlled airpower, would make it much easier to achieve a state of fair influence on game enjoyment and battle outcomes.

 

What are the main obstacles to such a direction for gameplay development?

1. obviously costs (unknowable)
2. and vested interests (of some players, and who knows what/who at WG)

Yeah, if focus was to give players control of a group of planes - then the aircraft carrier is unnecessary. If you really insist, the player can control a stationary airfield (it would make more sense with the planes regenerating). And since there are operation modes in the game with stationary objects like coastal artillery batteries, it shouldn't be too hard to implement.

 

 

But if we go THAT far and actually make "aircraft carriers" an off-map power...

I don't think flying with whole squadrons (made up of several flights) makes sense - it would be better if we had control of just the flights, no need to put em all together into this big squadron. So, if you have the T4 carrier, it could be, like, 4/4/4 configuration (first number being rocket fighters, then dive bombers, then torpedo bombers) numbers varying based on your choices on the tech tree and the nation of your "CV".

 

Now with Flights appearing on the edges of the map... What can you do with them?

It would be useful if you could choose (more or less) where the flight will appear on the map. Still - you should be able to order it to go back to base (I don't want flights as another consumable, thank you) like you can now. They get back, and after a while, you can use them again (provided they survive). If they are destroyed - you have one less flight available. If half of it is destroyed - you still have that flight, but it will be halved (if you happen to have the same losses with another flight of the same type - the damaged flights merge and for 2 half-hp flights you get 1 full hp flight (Personally, I would like to select the size of my flight, perhaps I want to fly with only 1 plane to scout out the area).

 

About CV versus CV interaction - the current system for dropping a fighter consumable to hinder the enemy CV is clunky, and with the case of these flights, becomes unsuitable (basically, the flight drops it's bombs/torpedoes and heads straight home rather than maneuvering around for another go) - if you really insist on having this interaction, you could increase responsiveness of these fighters, that start heading straight for the flight (and in most cases guaranteeing it's destruction). Personally, I would not agree with this approach, and just forget about CV vs CV interaction entirely . Pretend it's happening off map, if you will.

 

Surface ship versus CV interaction:

Aside from using AA guns, I think that flight spawns should be tied to capture zones - if your other surface ship teammates manage to capture a zone, the area around it can be used to spawn friendly flights, and denying enemies. So, if your teammates managed to capture all zones - half the perimeter of the map is the area that your flights can appear. The other team - you just have a very narrow window of where the planes can spawn (perhaps, roughly, 1/10 of the map's perimeter).

Another idea could be that there is a special zone which battleships can "capture" - stay in it, in order to reduce the CVs hp. It would basically be a gamey tactic, and a rough indicator of how well your team is doing - you shouldn't allow battleships to get close to your spawn point. If you did, you fail as a team and thus lose your aircraft carrier.

But personally, I wouldn't really... mind this idea. It's interesting, but I wouldn't really be enthusiastic about it - random battles are generally... very random. And it is likely to see a battleship making to the other side (and thus, ending your game). Besides, isn't an Aircraft carrier - a mobile ship - that can move around to evade enemy fire? It on one hand gives more purpose to the battleships, but are we getting back to the stationary airfields idea?

 

 

Even so, I think this formula would work better with the old RTS mode, than the one we have now...

[Ashardalon_Dragnipur]

ship launched fighter consumable should actively hunt down all enemy squadrons within the ships base air detection radius 

they still have flight time so plenty of time for the CV to see them coming and turn around

also allows some ships to counter a CVs spotting capability's 

currently you basically need to ram them for them to do anything, its a useless consumable 

even in german BBs its better to equip the spotterplane for the 0.000001% chance that you hit something at that range 

make the consumable useful 

[Blogaugis]

3 minutes ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

ship launched fighter consumable should actively hunt down all enemy squadrons within the ships base air detection radius 

they still have flight time so plenty of time for the CV to see them coming and turn around

also allows some ships to counter a CVs spotting capability's 

currently you basically need to ram them for them to do anything, its a useless consumable 

even in german BBs its better to equip the spotterplane for the 0.000001% chance that you hit something at that range 

make the consumable useful 

Or, if RTS mode ever gets back, have them as actual planes that you can give orders to...

[UnterSeeBot]

28 minutes ago, Blogaugis said:

Or, if RTS mode ever gets back, have them as actual planes that you can give orders to...

Please, we all know, because Weegee told us so, that clicking on the map to set autopilot waypoints for airplanes is far too complicated for players, because it requires multitasking. 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

6 hours ago, Blogaugis said:

Or, if RTS mode ever gets back, have them as actual planes that you can give orders to...

Yeah, that would have been a great change while RTS was here.

But you can be quite sure that WG will never agree to the Reee-work being anything but a total success (and that's not the new way to spell "suckfest") so RTS will never (*) come back...

 

* for a given amount of "never", like "there will never be submarines in the game"

[BLUB__BLUB]

7 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Please, we all know, because Weegee told us so, that clicking on the map to set autopilot waypoints for airplanes is far too complicated for players, because it requires multitasking. 

...don't forget mountains, they are a baaaaadddd combo with WG autopilot.

I am amazed I haven't managed to definitely beach a CV (yet). 

But we'd see lots of planes crashing into the scenery. 

[Captaindanz]

On 10/18/2020 at 12:49 PM, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

Can we get the panic effect of DFAA back? 

 

 

Or AA in general, 1 he salvo from a conq/thunderer and all of your cr@ppy AA disappears

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

9 hours ago, Captaindanz said:

Or AA in general, 1 he salvo from a conq/thunderer and all of your cr@ppy AA disappears

I think that would be too much. Currently the deepest spot on earth is the CV skill floor, before the rework it was the Marianas Trench... 

Gotta do it bit by bit before we lose too many CV mains 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

56 minutes ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

I think that would be too much. Currently the deepest spot on earth is the CV skill floor, before the rework it was the Marianas Trench... 

Gotta do it bit by bit before we lose too many CV mains 

Well population is already low. Losing more would be even worse right? :D

[BanzaiPiluso]

What even is AA? 

A video showing how broken is the FDR.

 

 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

26 minutes ago, Winged_Cat_Dormant said:

What even is AA? 

A video showing how broken is the FDR.

 

 

 

LOL, uses Manfred, complains about FDR 

Mistake: "prioritise surface ships". Nope. 

[MadGunna]

13 hours ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

I think that would be too much. Currently the deepest spot on earth is the CV skill floor, before the rework it was the Marianas Trench... 

Gotta do it bit by bit before we lose too many CV mains 

... You're joking right? Prior to the rework the skill floor for CVs was closer to, roughly, the peak of the Mont Blanc. Not the highest mountain, but in order to be halfway effective you needed to put in some effort. You needed to figure out the different controls, you needed to manage your airgroups etc. AA stung, because every plane lost was one you were not getting back, and anyone that popped DFAA essentially ruined any runs. Not to mention that the enemy CV usually had a fighter or two airborne that unlike now actually did things, just to make it that little bit harder.

 

This, of course, was part of the issue.

 

WG flat out stated the class was not accessible enough to the morons. To the potatoes that are their target audience. Player numbers were never high to begin with, but they appear to be better than before the rework (though to what extent the tier IV carriers pump up the numbers, I don't know).

[bakmaita]

40 minutes ago, MadGunna said:

... You're joking right? Prior to the rework the skill floor for CVs was closer to, roughly, the peak of the Mont Blanc. Not the highest mountain, but in order to be halfway effective you needed to put in some effort. You needed to figure out the different controls, you needed to manage your airgroups etc. AA stung, because every plane lost was one you were not getting back, and anyone that popped DFAA essentially ruined any runs. Not to mention that the enemy CV usually had a fighter or two airborne that unlike now actually did things, just to make it that little bit harder.

 

This, of course, was part of the issue.

 

WG flat out stated the class was not accessible enough to the morons. To the potatoes that are their target audience. Player numbers were never high to begin with, but they appear to be better than before the rework (though to what extent the tier IV carriers pump up the numbers, I don't know).

Yes, along with the complete removal of CV vs CV interaction also because God forbid one CV might intercept and shot other's planes down.

It's now like duck hunt for surface ships with ducks being told "Hey, this is fun, you can try and dodge the bullets!"

 

[RamboCras]

The Roosevelt is bloody ridiculous, I had just some bombers circling over my Halland, sector set, AA consumable on and he just circled there for 30-40 seconds as I was killed and I downed 1 plane. 

 

Did you see how in Aerroons movie how you can come up parallel to ship (he thinks you are not aiming for him) then make a 90-degree turn and hit him with 6 torps? I think he had 60K damage in 3 minutes.

 

First a German C that can't damage DDs, so you're fcked when he is on your team,  now this. A CV on steroids? It's destroying game fun for at least 12 others when you have an enemy with the Roosevelt. If you give both teams a Roosevelt 22 players are having a crap game.

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

17 hours ago, MadGunna said:

... You're joking right? Prior to the rework the skill floor for CVs was closer to, roughly, the peak of the Mont Blanc. Not the highest mountain, but in order to be halfway effective you needed to put in some effort. You needed to figure out the different controls, you needed to manage your airgroups etc. AA stung, because every plane lost was one you were not getting back, and anyone that popped DFAA essentially ruined any runs. Not to mention that the enemy CV usually had a fighter or two airborne that unlike now actually did things, just to make it that little bit harder.

 

This, of course, was part of the issue.

 

WG flat out stated the class was not accessible enough to the morons. To the potatoes that are their target audience. Player numbers were never high to begin with, but they appear to be better than before the rework (though to what extent the tier IV carriers pump up the numbers, I don't know).

Joking? I didn't mention the old days... It were more fun days to play CV though.

 

WarGaming made the base game more difficult due the rework. You have to pay an awful lot of attention to the mini map, less room to carry potatoes and no useable counter against planes anymore. So they lowered one skill floor and raised the base skill floor for surface ships... 
 

[mcboernester]

Rate nae nae / 10 

[hopfolk]

BALANCE:

DD survivability + to around light cruiser-like levels (DDs being wiped out in a couple of salvoes / rocket barrages is way too fragile.)

DD Torp Damage - to CV-like Torp levels. (20K Damage on one torp is way too much, sorry.)

CV spotting of DDs near impossible - like 1km if at all.

 

Done.  Solved the CV "problem".

 

These changes would promote more varied play from both CVs, CLs and DDs.

Queue ratios at the moment suggest BBs & CVs are well-subscribed but Cruisers, especially light ones, are suffering.

More cruisers = tougher play for CVs, balanced out for DDs by the higher survivability.

 

Come at me, bro.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, RamboCras said:

First a German C that can't damage DDs, so you're fcked when he is on your team,  now this.

So, let me get this right. Just checking... 

You're OK when you have the Roosevelt on YOUR team and the enemy has MvR? 

[MadGunna]

3 hours ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

Joking? I didn't mention the old days... It were more fun days to play CV though.

 

WarGaming made the base game more difficult due the rework. You have to pay an awful lot of attention to the mini map, less room to carry potatoes and no useable counter against planes anymore. So they lowered one skill floor and raised the base skill floor for surface ships... 
 

Apologies, I thought you meant the skill floor was lower before the rework.

[mcboernester]

1 hour ago, MadGunna said:

Apologies, I thought you meant the skill floor was lower before the rework.

Actually i would say it was easier to "somewhat perform" pre rework thanks to autodrop while you now have to aim manually everytime. But this obviously only goes for the lower bracket