General CV related discussions.

[arquata2019_]

41 minuti fa, 1MajorKoenig ha scritto:

What a nonsense.

 

But regardless - let’s briefly summarize as I have something more interesting I want to discuss. 
 

The facts are:
 

1) Torpedobombers are almost identical in numbers pre/post rework given an estimated average 15min match time. Exceptions are CVs with very small RTS deck complements 

 

2) Dive bombers likewise 

 

3) for the rest there is no agreement on how to compare it. Essentially the rest ist: RTS manually controlled fighter squadrons VS. rework Rocket fighters plus the fighter consumable. Some here rate the rework complement higher - I am inclined to find the RTS part for this third section both more useful and worthy. But I am afraid we won’t find an agreement. 
 

Nevertheless the old “infinite” plane fairytale can be put to rest. 
 

———————————————————

 

NOW:

 

on to more interesting questions! That other thread on three potential CV improvements got me thinking about fighters in general.

 

I absolutely hate the current consumable model and find it lame, sloppy and it looks - just as AA - like a complete afterthought in the rework (which seems to be mostl built around the strike component more or less). 
I always thought that fighters would need to be manually controlled but I am curious now to your opinions - is that really a viable option?
 

Let’s assume two scenarios:

 

1) fighters would become a manually played squad

 

- pro: CV vs CV interaction 

- pro: possible to defend own fleet

 

- con: own team will constantly complain in case they are not defended. Put that together with controlling only one flight (which would be either fighter OR strike) and you will inevitably have a constant whine fest 

- con: the better fighter player would have a disproportionate advantage and could potentially even lock down the enemy CV. Now let’s imagine - one CV active, the other “as good as AFK” - sounds bad.

 

After all: are manual fighters too powerful of a tool to give to the players?

 

 

2) let’s assume we try to make fighter more part of the flight deck like other planes - would that work? Eg.:

 

- give the CV one fighter squadron at their disposal just like strike planes with a flight size, number of spots on deck, regeneration time 

 

- instead of directly controlling these in 1st person we would keep the current consent of placing a patrol area for them. But rather than dropping it from a squadron we place it directly from the CV hull controls - I think El2azer brought this idea up - proposal: similar to the birds eye view for spotter planes or the ASW flight view

 

- make these squadron more like RTS fighters that they dog fight anything in their patrol area. Not this “cancel each other out” but RNG supported dog fighting with circling, ammo, etc.
 

- this would probably require some much quicker aggro time to make these a tool of area defense 

 

- this said area should be larger than the consumable area 

 

- returning fighters would be put back into the deck as any other planes as well and use regeneration in case of losss exactly as any other squadron 

 

- once ammo is consumed or patrol time is up send fighters back. Alternatively recall them manually

 

- potentially let them fly high - same as German DBs - and make them very resilient or even immune against AA. As a compensation they shouldn’t spot ships (or just minimal) - would need to be tested but you get the general idea 
 

- once the fighter attack they should dive down to the bombers flight level to start the AI controlled dogfighting. Once they leave their high altitude they should become vulnerable to AA as any other plane (so still open a way for bombers to let them seek cover over friendly AA)

 

- bombers would need rear gunners for rudimentary defense (AI)

 

Now I am curious - what would you think about different options for fighters? Any opinions? @El2aZeR / @Bear__Necessities / @Zuihou_Kai / @BLUB__BLUB / @Pikkozoikum ?

you not tag me? :O

well, planes that can shoot at your command, with smoke screens (50% of the normal ones, if you get spotted at 4km in a dd smokescreen you will get spotted at 8km by planes one), depth charges...

[1MajorKoenig]

6 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

you not tag me? :O

Sorry my bad  - probably forgot more ppl 

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

What a nonsense.

 

But regardless - let’s briefly summarize as I have something more interesting I want to discuss. 
 

The facts are:
 

1) Torpedobombers are almost identical in numbers pre/post rework given an estimated average 15min match time. Exceptions are CVs with very small RTS deck complements 

 

2) Dive bombers likewise 

 

3) for the rest there is no agreement on how to compare it. Essentially the rest ist: RTS manually controlled fighter squadrons VS. rework Rocket fighters plus the fighter consumable. Some here rate the rework complement higher - I am inclined to find the RTS part for this third section both more useful and worthy. But I am afraid we won’t find an agreement. 
 

Nevertheless the old “infinite” plane fairytale can be put to rest. 
 

———————————————————

 

NOW:

 

on to more interesting questions! That other thread on three potential CV improvements got me thinking about fighters in general.

 

I absolutely hate the current consumable model and find it lame, sloppy and it looks - just as AA - like a complete afterthought in the rework (which seems to be mostl built around the strike component more or less). 
I always thought that fighters would need to be manually controlled but I am curious now to your opinions - is that really a viable option?
 

Let’s assume two scenarios:

 

1) fighters would become a manually played squad

 

- pro: CV vs CV interaction 

- pro: possible to defend own fleet

 

- con: own team will constantly complain in case they are not defended. Put that together with controlling only one flight (which would be either fighter OR strike) and you will inevitably have a constant whine fest 

- con: the better fighter player would have a disproportionate advantage and could potentially even lock down the enemy CV. Now let’s imagine - one CV active, the other “as good as AFK” - sounds bad.

 

After all: are manual fighters too powerful of a tool to give to the players?

 

 

2) let’s assume we try to make fighter more part of the flight deck like other planes - would that work? Eg.:

 

- give the CV one fighter squadron at their disposal just like strike planes with a flight size, number of spots on deck, regeneration time 

 

- instead of directly controlling these in 1st person we would keep the current consent of placing a patrol area for them. But rather than dropping it from a squadron we place it directly from the CV hull controls - I think El2azer brought this idea up - proposal: similar to the birds eye view for spotter planes or the ASW flight view

 

- make these squadron more like RTS fighters that they dog fight anything in their patrol area. Not this “cancel each other out” but RNG supported dog fighting with circling, ammo, etc.
 

- this would probably require some much quicker aggro time to make these a tool of area defense 

 

- this said area should be larger than the consumable area 

 

- returning fighters would be put back into the deck as any other planes as well and use regeneration in case of losss exactly as any other squadron 

 

- once ammo is consumed or patrol time is up send fighters back. Alternatively recall them manually

 

- potentially let them fly high - same as German DBs - and make them very resilient or even immune against AA. As a compensation they shouldn’t spot ships (or just minimal) - would need to be tested but you get the general idea 
 

- once the fighter attack they should dive down to the bombers flight level to start the AI controlled dogfighting. Once they leave their high altitude they should become vulnerable to AA as any other plane (so still open a way for bombers to let them seek cover over friendly AA)

 

- bombers would need rear gunners for rudimentary defense (AI)

 

Now I am curious - what would you think about different options for fighters? Any opinions? @El2aZeR / @Bear__Necessities / @Zuihou_Kai / @BLUB__BLUB / @Pikkozoikum ?

If it requires that much of a complicated and dedicated mechanic on top of everything else you have to do in game, it shows to me that CV's still cannot be balanced. 

 

We get told not to balance around the unicums enough. So using that logic, it's to vast and complicated for the majority 49%. Though I will applaud you on taking the time to think of alternatives. 

[1MajorKoenig]

10 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

If it requires that much of a complicated and dedicated mechanic on top of everything else you have to do in game, it shows to me that CV's still cannot be balanced. 

 

That question maybe a little aside as it is a very general one which we likely won’t find a common understanding. 
 

But: What would you do with fighters? What do you think about the two alternatives? To me it looks like WG only spend Major considerations on the strike part and just slapped the rest (AA, fighters) in afterwards. Well maybe the flak clouds were some original design element. 
 

What I’m looking for: what would be a reasonable alternative to the current - and mostly disliked - fighters? WG doesn’t seem to be entirely against putting some more effort into it (eg they re-did this sector thingy). But what would be a reasonable request for improvements?

[Bear__Necessities]

13 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

That question maybe a little aside as it is a very general one which we likely won’t find a common understanding. 
 

But: What would you do with fighters? What do you think about the two alternatives? To me it looks like WG only spend Major considerations on the strike part and just slapped the rest (AA, fighters) in afterwards. Well maybe the flak clouds were some original design element. 
 

What I’m looking for: what would be a reasonable alternative to the current - and mostly disliked - fighters? WG doesn’t seem to be entirely against putting some more effort into it (eg they re-did this sector thingy). But what would be a reasonable request for improvements?

Fighters just need to insta attack if enemy planes go in their zone. No delay. Just straight up see and attack. 

[Crosser]

just had a fight with 2 CV's - i am sailing in a Massachuset - pushing towards there cap zone -full speed ahead - completely open - in that match, i shoot 107 planes down - something broke?? 

this is not normal...

 

 

the 2 CV's was - Have removed the names

[El2aZeR]

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

What a nonsense.

 

And you have yet to give irrefutable facts as to why that is.

 

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

3) for the rest there is no agreement on how to compare it.

 

Wrong, you just refuse to face facts as always.

 

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

1) fighters would become a manually played squad

 

Useless for the same reason fighters are useless now. CV play is a damage race, attempting to intercept the enemy squad means you are not dealing damage while the enemy is. And this will always be that way in any kind of proposal that makes you forgo damage dealing in favor of fleet defense.

 

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

2) let’s assume we try to make fighter more part of the flight deck like other planes - would that work?

 

This is about the same as I proposed in the other thread. However placing control on the hull instead of just being controllable while flying a squad is unnecessarily restricting. Having fighters fly at "high altitude" and be immune to AA before aggro is also potentially abusable as you could for example simply pop it on top of the enemy CV, as such I would remove that part.

[1MajorKoenig]

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Wrong, you just refuse to face facts as always.

Facts like „one time consumable = 100% comparable to playable assets such as torpedo bombers” - calling this nonsense “fact” is a bit of a stretch but as I said - that part is not going to find a common ground. 
 

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Useless for the same reason fighters are useless now. CV play is a damage race, attempting to intercept the enemy squad means you are not dealing damage while the enemy is. And this will always be that way in any kind of proposal that makes you forgo damage dealing in favor of fleet defense.

Current situation yes but a possibility to reduce the enemy’s damage race that would be. Question would be more if it would be too decisive as a tool?

 

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

This is about the same as I proposed in the other thread

Precisely that is where I took it from. I admit at first I didn’t like it but once you think about it a bit more it would be an improvement. Especially since manual controlled fighters probably don’t work well in the model. For me it would already be a big step forward if fighters would be part of the deck and use the same logic with regards to availability, etc. And I don’t like the “cancel each other out” at all - a simple AI dogfight would be a bit less gamey for me at least.
 

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

However placing control on the hull instead of just being controllable while flying a squad is unnecessarily restricting.

Fair point 

 

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Having fighters fly at "high altitude" and be immune to AA before aggro is also potentially abusable as you could for example simply pop it on top of the enemy CV, as such I would remove that part.

Valid point - although it would be nice to somehow have a possibility to place these next to your ships without a random enemy killing them

[Deckeru_Maiku]

4 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

Fighters just need to insta attack if enemy planes go in their zone. No delay. Just straight up see and attack. 

Delay when they placed is okay though... y'know for "not dropping them right on the enemy flight", but yes, after that they should immediately attack and not circle around like half-blind parrots

[El2aZeR]

32 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Facts like „one time consumable = 100% comparable to playable assets such as torpedo bombers”

 

They do not need to be comparable to playable assets. It comes down merely to:
- are they planes?
- do they offer any utility against surface ships?

Fighters tick both quite handily in both iterations and as such are counted in reserves whereas the CV hull fighter in the rework does not.

 

34 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Current situation yes but a possibility to reduce the enemy’s damage race that would be. Question would be more if it would be too decisive as a tool?

 

The enemy dealing damage whereas you are not inevitably lets your opponent pull ahead. It also forces you to play reactionary and gamble, if you happen to be on the wrong flank there is no way to transition to the other fast enough if enemy planes are spotted there, meaning you risk to fall even further behind for no gain whatsoever.

 

This is why manually controlled fighters do not work within the design of the rework no matter how they are implemented unless either air superiority is made the singular focus of CV play, which kinda defeats the point of having CVs in the game, or CVs transition from single role to multi role assets as they were in RTS.

 

38 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Valid point - although it would be nice to somehow have a possibility to place these next to your ships without a random enemy killing them

 

I'm afraid there is no real solution for that. Anything that would make fighters too tanky or invulnerable to AA would automatically make them abusable in the manner described previously.

[1MajorKoenig]

45 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

This is why manually controlled fighters do not work within the design of the rework no matter how they are implemented

Tend to agree although it’s a pity 

 

46 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

I'm afraid there is no real solution for that. Anything that would make fighters too tanky or invulnerable to AA would automatically make them abusable in the manner described previously.

Abuse like putting on top of the enemy CV? If that would trigger CAP (would that a feature to be kept?) this would be wasting (and now fighters would need to be kept alive) the fighters, no? As they would just fight the CAP supported by the CV’s AA? And it would mean the enemy CV needs to be spotted in the first place.
Or are there other abuses for “fly high - don’t eat Flak (or little) and don’t spot ships (or little but probably none)”?

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Abuse like putting on top of the enemy CV? If that would trigger CAP (would that a feature to be kept?) this would be wasting (and now fighters would need to be kept alive) the fighters, no? As they would just fight the CAP supported by the CV’s AA? And it would mean the enemy CV needs to be spotted in the first place.

 

This in itself would already be abusable since it makes CV sniping a viable strategy. Even CV AA is incapable of denying multiple attacks from a single squad.

At best you could make fighters immune to long-range DPS which would reduce but not entirely eliminate the issue.

[Nibenay78]

10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Sorry my bad  - probably forgot more ppl 

You forgot me also!!

[Nibenay78]

9 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

Fighters just need to insta attack if enemy planes go in their zone. No delay. Just straight up see and attack. 

Usually they either loiter around until its waaaay too late, or just dont react at all. Very useful to defend your teammates.

[BLUB__BLUB]

13 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Now I am curious - what would you think about different options for fighters? Any opinions?

WG won't do it, as that would indeed bring back "CV shutdown". Which was one of the reasons for the Reeeeework.

 

Besides, it is already easy enough. Today I was in that Clan Brawl (Midway), managed to challenge the enemy CV to a duel... 

basically I ended up with some leftover torpedo planes and dropped on the enemy CV... yeah I left a spotter, too (oh sorry they are called "fighters", LOL).

He "accepted the challenge" and went for my CV. Meanwhile my team (and me) wrecked his...we won, except this time I ended on 25%HP LOL. 

But they all ended up dead.  

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Usually they either loiter around until its waaaay too late, or just dont react at all. Very useful to defend your teammates.

Tonight I showed some of my clanmates how they work. Was streaming in discord.

We faildivved (of course) and I attacked a T8 BB, which was "protected" by the fighters... LOLLZZZ> 

And for sure they won't prevent an attack. Now I'm not even that good, just a bit savvy. 

If it were @El2aZeR showing there, he'd have sunk that BB, too. 

Did give that BB a good smacker though. Kinda sure I am back to zero karma again as well. 

 

I tend to try and trigger the fighters in CB so they do not keep spotting my teammates. 

I do it when I have only one plane left or so, or I drag them over a BB... anyway he'll lose them.

I find them most useful for messing with the other CV. Drop them at 8km... hey guys (F3) there's the pelt...

 

[COPlUM]

I genuinely don't know what fighter planes are even supposed to do. I have yet to see them engage a CV squadron, do they even work? I've found other uses for them, peeking around corners, giving me some extra vision when a DD is right on the edge of its concealment, extra visual range in cyclones. Are they supposed to shoot down CV attacks? If so how? Am I clicking the button wrong?

[Estaca_de_Bares]

36 minutes ago, NikolayKuznetsov said:

I genuinely don't know what fighter planes are even supposed to do. I have yet to see them engage a CV squadron, do they even work? I've found other uses for them, peeking around corners, giving me some extra vision when a DD is right on the edge of its concealment, extra visual range in cyclones. Are they supposed to shoot down CV attacks? If so how? Am I clicking the button wrong?

From what I've seen, they only engage squadrons that are almost right above you, which most of the time implies you're already the target of a CV attack and his first ordnance drop on you has been done as they do the flyover. In that sense, they only work as a deterrence against follow-on passes by the same squadron, and not a very good one: regarding RFs or SDBs they have some utility, but TPBs are technically able (I've more or less done it right a couple of times in coop) to time their own healing so it's active at the same moment the fighters actually engage and deal damage (they have a limited time span for that), losing from none to just a couple of planes as a result.

 

About using them for peeking what's behind an island, sure, it's quite common. Spotter planes tend to be superior in that regard under certain circumstances, though, since their circling radius is bigger.

 

Salute.

[Nibenay78]

6 hours ago, NikolayKuznetsov said:

I genuinely don't know what fighter planes are even supposed to do. I have yet to see them engage a CV squadron, do they even work? I've found other uses for them, peeking around corners, giving me some extra vision when a DD is right on the edge of its concealment, extra visual range in cyclones. Are they supposed to shoot down CV attacks? If so how? Am I clicking the button wrong?

They pretend to look scary so the CV might consider to pick another target... or if you do like me: play and watch youtube you might fly into them by accident :D  

 

edit: their trigger circle should be much bigger and response waaay faster. Its not like they last long anyways

[1MajorKoenig]

5 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

They pretend to look scary so the CV might consider to pick another target... or if you do like me: play and watch youtube you might fly into them by accident :D  

 

edit: their trigger circle should be much bigger and response waaay faster. Its not like they last long anyways

I don’t disagree that fighters are terribly „implemented“ - but the whole consumable concept is garbage unfortunately.

 

Also because they are one time use only is a problem. The whole thing is bad.

 

@El2aZeR - so in this little model:

 

- so should fighters only be subject to close range AA and would take reduced (likely significantly) damage from Flak clouds (they won’t dodge) and long range DPS?

 

- what (limited) spotting do they need to do? None? Or just ships firing at them? Or just small radius around them?

 

- should they be placed anywhere on the map? Or should they have a max range from the CV hull?

 

- what would be reasonable patrol duration? If the fighters become part of the flightdeck there would be no number of charges anymore but only ready planes? 
 

- is the old RTS dogfighting sufficient? 
 

- what about exiting a dogfight? Yes/no/maybe?

[arquata2019_]

will you two @El2aZeR and @1MajorKoenig go forward with this "argument" (cvs) forever? i can count every second passed if you want

i am smarter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~→ (<<< that is a pistol who goes boom boom)

                         |

                        /\ no but like seriously, if you both are tired to writing the same things all over again just say "you stupid me smart"

[El2aZeR]

51 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

- so should fighters only be subject to close range AA and would take reduced (likely significantly) damage from Flak clouds (they won’t dodge) and long range DPS?

 

- what (limited) spotting do they need to do? None? Or just ships firing at them? Or just small radius around them?

 

- should they be placed anywhere on the map? Or should they have a max range from the CV hull?

 

- what would be reasonable patrol duration? If the fighters become part of the flightdeck there would be no number of charges anymore but only ready planes? 
 

- is the old RTS dogfighting sufficient? 
 

- what about exiting a dogfight? Yes/no/maybe?

 

As far as I know fighters are largely immune to flak anyway as they are too fast and turn too sharply for the flak system to keep up. If you wanted to prevent fighter cover being denied by long range AA, making them immune to it but not medium/close range is pretty much the only solution. Personally I question whether that is necessary in the first place, even during RTS fighter cover often wasn't an option if the ship you attempted to cover entered the AA range of another ship.

 

Either no spotting at all or at best physical spotting only for the CV, minimap spotting for everyone else. I would prefer the former as then fighters would have a singular purpose and cannot be abused as spotters at all. In the rework offensive potential trumps defensive potential, if players could use their fighters to spot instead of defending their team, they will.

 

If fighters fly out from the CV hull, anywhere on the map should be fine as fighters would be limited by flight times then. If they cannot spot that makes placing them anywhere except near allies completely pointless too.

 

I would start testing at 1:30 minutes along with fighters not disengaging if aggro is pulled and the patrol time expires.

Alternatively you could make fighters have a flight time and ammo limit instead of a fixed patrol area/time and cd. This would allow you to continuously reposition your fighter patrol area until they either run out of ammo or out of "fuel", which would make them more akin to RTS fighters. For that fighter speed would have to be severely decreased though to prevent you from just always repositioning them to where the enemy squad currently is on the fly.

 

It would have to be severely enhanced if you'd like to see it return as strikes are executed much faster than back in RTS due to much higher plane speeds. Shootdown rates over time that were sufficient back then will inevitably be insufficient based on that alone.

 

I would say if aggro is pulled there should be no way for a squad to disengage beyond a successful bail. You could however make it so that fighters will engage each other immediately upon entering aggro area and "negate" each other. This would allow for limited counterplay and, since fighters are now limited by flight times and deck reserves, present a rather unfavorable trade as it sacrifices both offensive and defensive potential since you have to wait for fighters to arrive before you can strike and are incapable of defending teammates from enemy strikes in the meantime.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

9 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Now I'm not even that good, just a bit savvy.

Methinks thou protest too much...

 

On the other hand, I managed to get my (solo) winrate in the Ryujo to 60% over 91 battles - going to stop playing her at 100 battles, to train the other T6 CVs a bit - which kinda proves your "savvyness" as you're only got solo 56% and it still being Your best (solo) CV...

Which also proves, that CVs are broken enough for someone for me, with the reflexes of a 60 years old and the willingness to learn new stuff of a conservative politician can manage a near unicorn winrate and be a pita for opposing players.

 

[BanzaiPiluso]

Are CVs still in the game?

 

[Excavatus]

Just now, Winged_Cat_Dormant said:

Are CVs still in the game?

 

Ofcourse not, 
they figured out it was CVs what broke the chat server.. so they removed it. 

Please go celebrate it by playing a TRB kagero!