General CV related discussions.

[El2aZeR]

51 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The CV has the risk to lose dpm.

 

Completely negligible combined with their other advantages and AA being pathetic even when grouped.

It's not even remotely comparable given that ships lose initiative and combat effectiveness with a waning HP pool which a CV does not need to deal with. A negligible loss of DPM is an extremely good trade when stacked against that. To misconstrue one of the greatest advantages of CVs into a weakness is either laughably ignorant or blatantly disingenuous.

 

51 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's like saying, that DDs have good concealment, or that BBs have strong alpha damage or huge HP pool. The feature of a CV is, that he uses planes.

Even though, what is the point of complaining about that? It rather needs improvements, so it would make more sense, if there is something wrong -> offer solutions.

 

Aka CVs are fundamentally broken and as such there is no recourse but to either rework them from the ground up again or remove them. There is no other real solution.

 

51 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

These game designs exist a lot in many games.

 

No they don't. Aside from Arty in WoT, which btw is getting another rework, literally every example is generally accepted to be balanced on a competitive level because they have suitable weaknesses to balance out their strengths. CVs on the other hand have no noteworthy weaknesses and as such are completely broken which is the primary reason why they have been removed from competitive play.

Thanks for demonstrating that you have no clue whatsoever about game design though.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

All of those have counter-plays, require those on the receiving end to make mistakes, require the other party to take risks, and form the core of the game.

That's a "strawman". I never stated anything about counter-play. 

In this game, everybody sooner or later ends up in a position that is quite one-way. 

Detected by a DD, outside your reach/vision.  Getting blapped by his mate in the Thunderer. 

 

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

None of the above applies to CV.

Does though. Every side has a CV. Your CV can spot theirs. And then we'll always have that Thunderer. 

 

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

Aha, an active counterplay, something that's entirely absent from CV.

Once again you use your "strawman". Also, if the team actually wants it, then they CAN swat the CV. 

They can also team up and smite most of his "muskeetoes". 

 

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

What the game instead offers is an insect repellent, of varying strengths, that may or may not be effective depending upon how much the mosquito wants to bite you.

That is true. There is little challenge in it. 

 

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

There's a world of difference between picking an unfair fight within a game, and having the unfairness built into the game where the fairness is entirely dependent upon the class.

So, you do not mind the bullying but you want only the better players to be able to be the bully?

Such a thing is called "meritocracy". It might be worse than having CVs. 

 

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

Your point about chess is interesting, because in most games where there is an inherent unfairness the rules do their upmost to minimise it, the advantage being determined by the toss of a coin, multiple rounds of the game with the advantage alternating, the advantage being offset by a competing disadvantage and so on.

Eh well. We could say the Queen in chess is sort of like a CV. 

But there is nothing holding you back from being the CV either. 

And you do not even have to toss a coin. If you don;t want to, and the reds get one, 

WeeGee even made sure you have one too. 

 

CVs aren't balanced at all, and broken AF. 

However, I'm not so sure other classes do not have their own problems. 

This game is just like that. It will not change, WeeGee won't do it. 

So either you live with it (and yes it is crap), or you don't. 

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

You think people havent offered solutions?

 

Maybe, just maybe people are bitter because solutions were offered, and then ignored? In what way has wg indicated they are interested in hearing of feedback or solutions for how cvs are implemented?

As I said in my entry itself, that I offered solutions.

 

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

(...) offer solutions. I did that a few times (...)

 

So no idea, why you asking that xD

 

Of course WG is not going with all solutions, why would they? If I would be a game developer, I wouldn't go always with all proposals of every player. That's not even possible, but also players have often very subjective view.

It's not about that. It's just not a healthy discussion if people just say "Feature x sucks, no other ship has that, pls remove"

I would way more agree with others, when they would argue like "CV planes are too fast and mobile, they should their speed lowered to 100 knots or maybe fuel system"

Though 100 knots with planes would be kinda weird, but that's something you could really discus

 

 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

Aka CVs are fundamentally broken and as such there is no recourse but to either rework them from the ground up again or remove them. There is no other real solution.

True. The Reeeeeework did not fix the RTS problems. It just changed them for new & different ones. 

 <----  

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

True. The Reeeeeework did not fix the RTS problems. It just changed them for new & different ones. 

 <----  

Don't see really "new" or "differnt" ones. I see only the same ones, but weakend.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though 100 knots with planes would be kinda weird, but that's something you could really discus

That's about the speed FDR planes have. I think that would get boring after a while.

But you DO notice that AA works. Alswo, because they are THAT slow you have to avoid more FLAK. 
Which is kinda hard, because those fatass squadrons will not fit through any gaps. 

The low speed also gives ships time to react/decide/avoid any dropped stuff. 

 

SO, why not have two speeds for planes:

- travel speed.

- attack speed. 

[Pikkozoikum]

2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That's about the speed FDR planes have. I think that would get boring after a while.

But you DO notice that AA works. Alswo, because they are THAT slow you have to avoid more FLAK. 
Which is kinda hard, because those fatass squadrons will not fit through any gaps. 

The low speed also gives ships time to react/decide/avoid any dropped stuff. 

 

SO, why not have two speeds for planes:

- travel speed.

- attack speed. 

In theory you already have that with the engine boost, and actually that was always my idea about that

- remove the engine-boost refill consumable

- remove the engine boost regeneration

- adjust engine boost for rocket planes

 

With that change, the CV is way more limited in using the engine boost and will mostly save it for the attack

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Don't see really "new" or "differnt" ones. I see only the same ones, but weakend.

Problems you mean? RTS CVs didn't have "restoring". Once deplaned, you had a very very large torpedo. 

And most CVs cannot attack the other CV. Hmm... you also cannot really attack the other CVs squadrons. 

 

I'm one that thinks the reeeeework is a bit better - because the RTS was unplayable for me. 

It would always do exactly what I did NOT want... or lag... or some combination of the above. 

I also think it looks much better. 

[El2aZeR]

8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I see only the same ones, but weakend.

 

Which I suppose is why you perform better in those "weakened" CVs.

Hilarious.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

In theory you already have that with the engine boost, and actually that was always my idea about that

- remove the engine-boost refill consumable

- remove the engine boost regeneration

- adjust engine boost for rocket planes

Yeah sort of.... but reversed.

 

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

With that change, the CV is way more limited in using the engine boost and will mostly save it for the attack

... but I mean, in real life you had to keep the planes SLOW AND STEADY.

And if you didn't, the torpedo might just explode upon contact with the water, for instance.

Or, after dropping a bomb, the resulting weight loss would send the plane in such a whopper the wings would break off. 

Dive bombers even needed air brakes, or turn into lawn darts.

[Pikkozoikum]

18 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yeah sort of.... but reversed.

 

... but I mean, in real life you had to keep the planes SLOW AND STEADY.

And if you didn't, the torpedo might just explode upon contact with the water, for instance.

Or, after dropping a bomb, the resulting weight loss would send the plane in such a whopper the wings would break off. 

Dive bombers even needed air brakes, or turn into lawn darts.

I think that depends on the torpedo technology. I also think, that the torpedos might have an arming system like depth charges? In Warthunder you can drop the japanese torpedos something like 500 km/h, which is quite hard to reach in a TB

 

And yes, dive bombers need air breaks, but as you said, they would be way too fast, they would be faster than max speed. Diving with their max speed would work, I think, but in War Thunder, you don't have gravitiy, that drags you down with 700, 800 km/h. So this mechanic is completly missing

[Pikkozoikum]

25 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Problems you mean? RTS CVs didn't have "restoring". Once deplaned, you had a very very large torpedo. 

And most CVs cannot attack the other CV. Hmm... you also cannot really attack the other CVs squadrons.

I don't think, that this is a problem. First because it's a design choice to make it different. We could also add ammunition for shells and torpedos, otherwise we could also say, the issue with DDs is, that they have unlimited torpedos, but it's not, because it's the design choice.

But then, you can deplane. having 1-3 planes in reserve is almost like having no planes. Even having a full squad of planes on one type, but not on the others can have impact. Lets say you play haku and your rocket planes are at 0-2. But then the enemies have only DDs left. That can be an issue

I mean these comparison are quite hard to make, because it's a complete different game design.

 

It's like I would play League of Legends and they rework a champion and I would now say, "but before the rework, he could do this and that". That makes no sense to say that, because the rework is a new design, that works independend of the older design. Old mechanics might not work with the new design.

 

Imagine you would play the Rework CV with old deck number and deplaning: How fast would be the CV useless and pointless to play? I don't think that this mechanic would work well

 

On the other hand, what would you say, if they remove the regeneration... but then increase the total decknumber in return. Then the number would be limited, but still so many planes, that he won't deplane often^^

If WG would decide to remove the restoring mechanic, then they would add a compensation for that, thus more planes ;)

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The CV has the risk to lose dpm. No other ship has these kind of risks.

what

the

actual

 

Just a few examples of how ships risk losing dpm:

- Being dead drops your dpm to zero for good

- Not being in range of anything drops your dpm to zero

- Not being able to spot anything to shoot drops your dpm to zero

- Having islands or other stuff block your shots drops your dpm to zero

- Getting your turrets or torpedo launchers knocked out momentarily drops your dpm for a while <- this is what carriers also suffer from (in fact the only thing) and what makes their life soooo miserable

- Getting your turrets and torps destroyed drops your dpm for good

- Having so many red ships in range that you need to stay concealed to not get killed drops your dpm to zero

- Losing your hitpoints so that you don't dare to get spotted drops your dpm to zero

 

The only reason losing planes feels like such a big deal is because it's literally the only thing that limits carriers in any way. Most ships for example can't even start to engage before several minutes into the game purely because of range, positioning and spotting. Then the rest of their game is literally spent on trying to compete for locations and spots to keep their and their teammates' dpm higher than the red team's. Pretty much the entire game is all about using all means available to you to not lose too much dpm. So I ask again, what the actual

[BLUB__BLUB]

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't think, that this is a problem. First because it's a design choice to make it different. We could also add ammunition for shells and torpedos, otherwise we could also say, the issue with DDs is, that they have unlimited torpedos, but it's not, because it's the design choice.

I think that "design choice" was done because WeeGee didn't want unicum CVs shutting down Noobie-Cvs. 

But it still is a fail-as-design. Imagine BBs not being able to hurt other BBs... 

 

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

But then, you can deplane. having 1-3 planes in reserve is almost like having no planes. Even having a full squad of planes on one type, but not on the others can have impact. Lets say you play haku and your rocket planes are at 0-2. But then the enemies have only DDs left. That can be an issue

Well I can kill everything with anything. I understamnd what you mean though. 

Even if 2-3 planes will still suffice, for me. I'll just drop them from behind an island. 

 

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I mean these comparison are quite hard to make, because it's a complete different game design.

? Oh you explained below. 

 

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's like I would play League of Legends and they rework a champion and I would now say, "but before the rework, he could do this and that". That makes no sense to say that, because the rework is a new design, that works independend of the older design. Old mechanics might not work with the new design.

I never played that... 

 

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Imagine you would play the Rework CV with old deck number and deplaning: How fast would be the CV useless and pointless to play? I don't think that this mechanic would work well

It would probably take quite long. 

 

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

On the other hand, what would you say, if they remove the regeneration... but then increase the total decknumber in return. Then the number would be limited, but still so many planes, that he won't deplane often^^

If WG would decide to remove the restoring mechanic, then they would add a compensation for that, thus more planes ;)

Well, it would depend on the player. But obviously - a good CV player would not run out. 

In the Reeeework, mediocre players do not run out, and for unicums it ois just "a matter of how costly' it will be to make a certain hit.

I am quite average. But I can take out a DM and a Wooster, and then finish off a Halland... in order to be able to farm that Musashi. 

[El2aZeR]

46 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's like I would play League of Legends and they rework a champion and I would now say, "but before the rework, he could do this and that". That makes no sense to say that, because the rework is a new design, that works independend of the older design. Old mechanics might not work with the new design.

 

You can compare the old with the new design to figure out whether the new design is better or worse. In case of CVs the old one, while also extremely flawed, was objectively superior.

Again, such an argument is either laughably ignorant or hilariously disingenuous.

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The only reason losing planes feels like such a big deal is because it's literally the only thing that limits carriers in any way.

It is the ONLY thing... really. 

 

Ok sometimes I ram stuff or go cap in a CV but hey.

[Pikkozoikum]

34 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Imagine BBs not being able to hurt other BBs... 

That's a quite bad example, you can't just take a feature of one ship and add it to another. Imagine Zao would get a 12km russian radar. Imagine a BB gets concealment of a DD. That doesn't work

 

So going with your example would also mean ,that the BB not being able to hurt other BBs, but also that every other ships is able to disable the turrents with every attack passivly ^^

BB wants shoot a broadside wooster? 70% turrets malfunction ;)

 

34 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I'll just drop them from behind an island.  

Well and I could say "I just kill the plane with AA"

 

34 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I never played that... 

Well, you could make an even heavier example. It's like comparing two different games. If I have two different games, I just can't pick the mechanic from one game and say "Yes, but there is that mechanic". Just because that mechanic exists in other games or other designs, doesn't mean, they work in every game the same.

I make an very theoretical example. Imagine we have 2 different designs with mechanics and counter mechanics

 

Design A

Mechanic A

Countermechanic A

 

Design B

Mechanic B

Countermechanic B

 

And now we go with, but we had earlier Mechanic A! Okay, so the conclusion is to add this mechanic to the new design

 

Design B

Mechanic B

Countermechanic B

Mechanic A

(No countermechanic B)

 

Now we got this old mechanic like it was before... but before we had also a counter mechanic, and this is missing. This is why you just can't go with "Yes, but I want this mechanic", you also have to look at the design as a whole, and which mechanics are connected with that.

 

34 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

It would probably take quite long. 

Well, acutally it would be the exact same like with resorting planes, the only difference is, that you already have the planes.

having 20 planes and able to restore 10 planes in 20 minutes, or having 30 planes from the beginning... I mean, yes WG, please give us all please at the beginning, then the CV can argue "but you can deplane us, because we have no restoring" :D

 

 

34 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, it would depend on the player. But obviously - a good CV player would not run out. 

In the Reeeework, mediocre players do not run out, and for unicums it ois just "a matter of how costly' it will be to make a certain hit.

I am quite average. But I can take out a DM and a Wooster, and then finish off a Halland... in order to be able to farm that Musashi. 

Well, I don't think it's a fun design to get deplaned completly tbh. The current version is more adapted to the surface ship gameplay (still different, but closer).

 

34 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I am quite average. But I can take out a DM and a Wooster, and then finish off a Halland... in order to be able to farm that Musashi.  

Hmm, guess I'm bad then, because killing 3 AA ships is quite nasty and doing that alone - never.

I played lately a lot Wooster, and even unicums lost their squads to me.

Maybe you attacked targets, that were hit by a Thunderer, but that's an issue wiht Thunderer, who can take 20% of AA with a single shell... I think HE should get removed from those ships, actually SAP would be good for BBs in genreal and also more realistic

Spoiler

That CV went for me 3 or 4 times.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

43 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

what

the

actual

 

Just a few examples of how ships risk losing dpm:

- Being dead drops your dpm to zero for good

- Not being in range of anything drops your dpm to zero

- Not being able to spot anything to shoot drops your dpm to zero

- Having islands or other stuff block your shots drops your dpm to zero

- Getting your turrets or torpedo launchers knocked out momentarily drops your dpm for a while <- this is what carriers also suffer from (in fact the only thing) and what makes their life soooo miserable

- Getting your turrets and torps destroyed drops your dpm for good

- Having so many red ships in range that you need to stay concealed to not get killed drops your dpm to zero

- Losing your hitpoints so that you don't dare to get spotted drops your dpm to zero

 

The only reason losing planes feels like such a big deal is because it's literally the only thing that limits carriers in any way. Most ships for example can't even start to engage before several minutes into the game purely because of range, positioning and spotting. Then the rest of their game is literally spent on trying to compete for locations and spots to keep their and their teammates' dpm higher than the red team's. Pretty much the entire game is all about using all means available to you to not lose too much dpm. So I ask again, what the actual

Context?

[BLUB__BLUB]

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That's a quite bad example, you can't just take a feature of one ship and add it to another. Imagine Zao would get a 12km russian radar. Imagine a BB gets concealment of a DD. That doesn't work

But actually that is sort of what they did. 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

So going with your example would also mean ,that the BB not being able to hurt other BBs, but also that every other ships is able to disable the turrents with every attack passivly ^^

BB wants shoot a broadside wooster? 70% turrets malfunction ;)

 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well and I could say "I just kill the plane with AA"

You can't. AA engages when the planes are spotted. 

That is when they think they are smart and hide behind an island. 

It works two ways, and I know where he is. And yes he knows I am coming for him.

But he cannot do anything...

 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, you could make an even heavier example. It's like comparing two different games. If I have two different games, I just can't pick the mechanic from one game and say "Yes, but there is that mechanic". Just because that mechanic exists in other games or other designs, doesn't mean, they work in every game the same.

I make an very theoretical example. Imagine we have 2 different designs with mechanics and counter mechanics

 

Design A

Mechanic A

Countermechanic A

 

Design B

Mechanic B

Countermechanic B

 

And now we go with, but we had earlier Mechanic A! Okay, so the conclusion is to add this mechanic to the new design

 

Design B

Mechanic B

Countermechanic B

Mechanic A

(No countermechanic B)

That is exactly what they did....

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Now we got this old mechanic like it was before... but before we had also a counter mechanic, and this is missing. This is why you just can't go with "Yes, but I want this mechanic", you also have to look at the design as a whole, and which mechanics are connected with that.

Which they still never did. 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, acutally it would be the exact same like with resorting planes, the only difference is, that you already have the planes.

having 20 planes and able to restore 10 planes in 20 minutes, or having 30 planes from the beginning... I mean, yes WG, please give us all please at the beginning, then the CV can argue "but you can deplane us, because we have no restoring" :D

Yeah true. But actually I meant like "deplaning will never happen to a good player". 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, I don't think it's a fun design to get deplaned completly tbh. The current version is more adapted to the surface ship gameplay (still different, but closer).

There still isn;t enough player-to-player interaction to make it satisfactory.

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Hmm, guess I'm bad then, because killing 3 AA ships is quite nasty and doing that alone - never.

Or maybe they were just stupid. They were hugging the island. 

AA was... yes, not working. 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I played lately a lot Wooster, and even unicums lost their squads to me.

Oh I lost whole squads to Wooster. one time I though I saw a Shima disappear in smoke. 

Which I did indeed, except I missed teh Wooster that was in the smoke with him... 

 

15 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Maybe you attacked targets, that were hit by a Thunderer, but that's an issue wiht Thunderer, who can take 20% of AA with a single shell... I think HE should get removed from those ships, actually SAP would be good for BBs in genreal and also more realistic

  Reveal hidden contents

That CV went for me 3 or 4 times.

 

With Thunderer, you can actually div up FDR with two Thunderers. 

One mate got 270K damage that way. I think Thunderer, FDR and a DD... 

[Pikkozoikum]

9 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

But actually that is sort of what they did. 

No idea, what you mean

 

10 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

You can't. AA engages when the planes are spotted. 

That is when they think they are smart and hide behind an island. 

It works two ways, and I know where he is. And yes he knows I am coming for him.

But he cannot do anything...

I can, because I wouldn't go into a position, where a CV just can kill me. I see it more often CVs failing attack, even from good players, than they really crush me.

And always, when I got rekt by a CV, it was actually my fault and my decision, to go for a risk play. I even posted such replays here.

 

12 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That is exactly what they did....

Still no idea what you mean. Also that has nothing to do with what you said ^^

If someone does a bad comparison, then this doesn't make it better, if you go with the bad comparison as well

 

13 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Which they still never did. 

"They"? It's currently not about "them" ^^

At least I don't understand the context here

 

14 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yeah true. But actually I meant like "deplaning will never happen to a good player". 

So it's rather better to have not deplaning, otherwise we will get a larger impact by good CVs vs bad CVs. Because one side will have a deplaned CV and the other not^^

 

15 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

There still isn;t enough player-to-player interaction to make it satisfactory.

I already suggested 2 ways of how to implement manual AA. And I would love to implement this just to see all the players fail with it and then the CV can just say "git gud" xD

Because the thing with manual AA is, that you still need some kind of balance. You can't make the AA that strong, that a single player can always defend hisself. because as soon you come to the team play, two ships will be immune to a CV.

The only way to balance that would be to add more CVs per match, so you can have 2vs2 and so on.

 

 

18 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Or maybe they were just stupid. They were hugging the island. 

AA was... yes, not working. 

Hmm, well, for me it is working. I took a single strike last match, took me like 5% of my HP and did 20k AA damage. After that I never saw the CV again (52% wr) ^^

 

23 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

With Thunderer, you can actually div up FDR with two Thunderers. 

One mate got 270K damage that way. I think Thunderer, FDR and a DD... 

When I have a CV in a match, I'm okay with that, but not when a thunderer HE salvo takes 20% of my AA with a single shell, causing fires, high damage, even when angled and also destroyes secondaries and torpedo tubes. This is just a stupid design.

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

No idea, what you mean

I mean, what they did was indeed mix up two games. 

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I can, because I wouldn't go into a position, where a CV just can kill me. I see it more often CVs failing attack, even from good players, than they really crush me.

And always, when I got rekt by a CV, it was actually my fault and my decision, to go for a risk play. I even posted such replays here.

Could be. However I have rekt many that were "seeking shelter by an island". 

Even having just 3 planes won't stop me. I'll fail-div a T6 Ark Royal into T9 and still... look here.

...and remember... I am not that good. Just a bit savvy. Meanwhile I had some that were better. 

Spoiler

 

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Still no idea what you mean. Also that has nothing to do with what you said ^^

If someone does a bad comparison, then this doesn't make it better, if you go with the bad comparison as well

That is exactly what I mean. WeeGee have implemented the example that you gave. They took something from game A and stuffed it into game B. 

And when that failed, instead of putting in the countermeasures from game A as well, they stuffed a variation of game A into game B. 

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

"They"? It's currently not about "them" ^^

At least I don't understand the context here

Never mind then. 

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

So it's rather better to have not deplaning, otherwise we will get a larger impact by good CVs vs bad CVs. Because one side will have a deplaned CV and the other not^^

True. Alas, they have even rekt it more. There is FLAK. 

And now the good player doesn't even have to "take care of" the bad player. 

The bad player cannot avoid FLAK... 

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I already suggested 2 ways of how to implement manual AA. And I would love to implement this just to see all the players fail with it and then the CV can just say "git gud" xD

Because the thing with manual AA is, that you still need some kind of balance. You can't make the AA that strong, that a single player can always defend hisself. because as soon you come to the team play, two ships will be immune to a CV.

The only way to balance that would be to add more CVs per match, so you can have 2vs2 and so on.

Well I'm sure some here would like 12CVs vs 12 CVs.

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Hmm, well, for me it is working. I took a single strike last match, took me like 5% of my HP and did 20k AA damage. After that I never saw the CV again (52% wr) ^^

It does work if the player is around average. However if he uis below that, it works too much. He sort of kills m himself by FLAK.

And if he is above average, FLAK doesn't bother him in the least. 

 

44 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

When I have a CV in a match, I'm okay with that, but not when a thunderer HE salvo takes 20% of my AA with a single shell, causing fires, high damage, even when angled and also destroyes secondaries and torpedo tubes. This is just a stupid design.

See. We agree, WeeGee has some stupid designs. They actually keep pumping them out.

[Pikkozoikum]

23 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I mean, what they did was indeed mix up two games. 

You mean the RTS with a Surface-ship shooter?

 

24 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Could be. However I have rekt many that were "seeking shelter by an island". 

Even having just 3 planes won't stop me. I'll fail-div a T6 Ark Royal into T9 and still... look here.

...and remember... I am not that good. Just a bit savvy. Meanwhile I had some that were better. 

I had also the case, where the island gave them cover, because they turned by 90° and I couldn't see that until I approached them. So the island actually protected them.

 

25 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That is exactly what I mean. WeeGee have implemented the example that you gave. They took something from game A and stuffed it into game B. 

And when that failed, instead of putting in the countermeasures from game A as well, they stuffed a variation of game A into game B. 

I still see no context there in our discussion and also I don't see, that they took from game A into game B. They implemented a new gameplay. That's our basis.

 

And that's, what I said earlier and tryed to explain. You can't take mechanics from Game A and put into into the Game B. The AA we got now is designed around the game design of the rework. The AA in RTS times were designed around the RTS game design.

The RTS game design worked different.

 

31 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

True. Alas, they have even rekt it more. There is FLAK. 

And now the good player doesn't even have to "take care of" the bad player. 

The bad player cannot avoid FLAK... 

Nobody can avoid Flak, they will hit everyone, even the best. They just hit less. (In the last post I showed you a screenshot with a unicum, and he took flak, too with his 67% WR)

Yes, the good CV player has not to take care of it, instead the surface ships have to take care of the enemy CV. The interaction shifted towards attacker/defender instead of CV vs CV. That means a team is not completly reiable on the CV player. Which is way better.

The problem is probably, that most people, who complain about AA are Mino/DM mains, I can understand that, but as an IJN main, it's actually way better than before.

 

35 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well I'm sure some here would like 12CVs vs 12 CVs.

As I said, if you make manual AA and skill reliability, then a single player could easily outplay a CV, and then multiple player would be invincible. That means, that multiple CVs are actually needed, so multiple CVs can attack multiple ships(a group).

 

37 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

It does work if the player is around average. However if he uis below that, it works too much. He sort of kills m himself by FLAK.

And if he is above average, FLAK doesn't bother him in the least. 

I can only apply my experience over the last days/weeks/month. And as a surface ships I don't have as much issues, than with the RTS. Very often it's actually fun to outplay a CV.

If I look at some RTS/Rework stats, some unicums dropped by 5% WR. So the influence seem lower

 

I often compare my gameplay with "how it was in RTS"

When I'm in a BB and take 10k dmg, then I remember how it was with RTS, when I would take 50k damage and a "double" perma flood and maybe a fire.

When I play a DD, while I'm perma spotted by a DB squad, getting crossdropped and my torpedos spotted

Even cruiser could get one shotted

 

But as I said, I think, we still need a minor rework.

 

42 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

See. We agree, WeeGee has some stupid designs. They actually keep pumping them out.

Sure, there is a lot, that I would change at the CV, at the russian ships, IJN ships, Thunderer etc. But I just don't jump on the CV hate train ^^

 

 

 

 

 

[El2aZeR]

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If I look at some RTS/Rework stats, some unicums dropped by 5% WR. So the influence seem lower

 

Ceilings have remained the same as is proven in statistics.

 

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I often compare my gameplay with "how it was in RTS"

 

Aka your perspective is entirely subjective, completely ignoring facts both obtained from both theoretical and practical tests.

It is thus completely worthless and you have just argued yourself out of the discussion. Congratulations.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Context?

Your massive walls of fiction? 

[Pikkozoikum]

3 hours ago, Europizza said:

Your massive walls of fiction? 

You probably even have no idea what the context was. So this comment is pretty pointless

 

You don't have to bother with quoting me in future, won't see them. Just a friendly hint ;)