General CV related discussions.

[El2aZeR]

17 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I think, you have no clue about game design, then you would know the possibilties.

 

Given it's my job and I have done it successfully for a few years, doubt it.

There are no infinite possibilities in game design, it follows clear conventions and restrictions that, if broken, creates a terrible gameplay experience. To even insinuate that everything is possible is laughable at best.

[One_Eye_Potato]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

Try an in game tutoria and  not a you tube video, perhaps even offering some incentive for learning the basics..  They managed it in World of Tanks.

[Figment]

 

33 minutes ago, Figment said:

How about we apply CV aircraft controls to cruiser/BB fighter consumables? The controls and code exists. It's mostly a matter of balancing and preventing new issues.

 

I would propose the following limitations and adjustments:

 

1. Fighter strength is dependent on a variety of things.
   • Tiering
   • The historic amount of aircraft a ship could have (storage capacity)
   • CV captain skills in fighter power could apply to these aircraft too.
   • Note that combined, ships can make a very effective fighter screen
   • Should be very vulnerable to AA, particularly from DD. Should battle approaching enemy aircraft. 
2. Switching control between ship and aircraft is possible as it was during RTS CVs
   • This should also apply to CVs to reduce AI reliance
   • When switching to ship controls, aircraft go into a loiter/patrol mode and act as currently a CV deployed fighter would. Which means you can leave it circling over a different area
   • When launching aircraft, you by default retain control over the ship until you switch to aircraft manually. Fighter patrols will automatically circle your ship as they would today.
3. Fighter patrols should be possible to be assigned to ships like in the RTS days.
   • On the map you could attach fighter patrols to circle a ship, just as the old RTS CV fighter patrols could be assigned to protect ships.
4. Reduced scouting capacity by relating operation time to distance from ship  in order to avoid stealth play being destroyed much further
   • Limited base (flight) time as today
   • "Fuel" taken into account: once fuel (and thus time) for a return trip runs out, the fighter returns to its ship. Hence the further the fighter flies from its ship of origin, the faster the fighter consumeable runs out as it has to return to its ship of origin.
   • Potentially reduce effectiveness of other detection systems (radar) to compensate for increased team ability to scout
5. Consider rebalancing CVs to mitigate for increased aircraft losses if they lose too many to make it workable.
   • Reduce scouting ability of aircraft by say 10% to compensate for increased air presence
   • Keep an eye on:
     • Aircraft reserve attrition speed
     • Leverage effect of sides with fighter power and those with less/who lost it

 

Consider what this would mean for anti-submarine and warfare and tracking the last stealth DD though. The increased scouting prowess should come with some mitigation towards DDs in particular. Of course being able to launch fighters to defend DDs from air harassment would also be possible in this new situation. It also provides a way to counter Tone and Ise attacks.

 

For those who don't want to control their fighters, things remain as they are, for those people who do opt to control their fighters, they get a bit of spotting capacity and improved / teamwork defense against CV attacks at the cost of their consumables duration.

Trying to think a bit out of the box here: what if we make air combat more of a two-sided interaction?

[Pikkozoikum]

3 hours ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

Try an in game tutoria and  not a you tube video, perhaps even offering some incentive for learning the basics..  They managed it in World of Tanks.

Is that so? Most tutorials are very basic and as soon they have some more depth, beginners often don't notice everything, because they are overloaded with information.

Best example is Elite Dangerous and the "pip-management" (Energy distribution to weapons, engines etc). It's explained in the tutorial, but almost no beginner knows about it, because they are so overloaded with information in the tutorial.

[Figment]

13 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Is that so? Most tutorials are very basic and as soon they have some more depth, beginners often don't notice everything, because they are overloaded with information.

Best example is Elite Dangerous and the "pip-management" (Energy distribution to weapons, engines etc). It's explained in the tutorial, but almost no beginner knows about it, because they are so overloaded with information in the tutorial.

This wouldn't happen if we still got instruction manuals with our games!

 

[One_Eye_Potato]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Is that so? Most tutorials are very basic and as soon they have some more depth, beginners often don't notice everything, because they are overloaded with information.

Best example is Elite Dangerous and the "pip-management" (Energy distribution to weapons, engines etc). It's explained in the tutorial, but almost no beginner knows about it, because they are so overloaded with information in the tutorial.

Yes, that's so.  Most in game tutorials are very basic for the exact reason you've stated; so new players are unlikely to watch 12 dozen You Tube videos are they?  I know I certainly didn't!  Thinking back, I recall seeing a couple, getting bored and googling stuff instead.  However that doesn't change the fact, that I think Wargaming are remiss in not including one, but if you're one of these people who want's to disagree and think that Wargaming are perfect and can do no wrong, then be my guest.

 

But the fact remains, World of Tanks has a playable tutorial covering things such as aimimg, capping and what constitutes a win in the various game modes and World of Warships doesn't.  Maybe this goes a long way to explaining why most World of Warships players seem clueless about those big coloured circles and those big numbers at the top of the screen!  Hey, what do I know?  I just play the game.   

 

As for Elite Dangerous, they stole the idea of power management from Lucas Art's X-Wing and I think Elite was the first game I bought fo rmy C64 back in 1984, after my VIC20 died.  That's a very long time ago, so do me a favour and don't tell granny how to suck eggs, she's a little tetchy at the moment.

[One_Eye_Potato]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

This wouldn't happen if we still got instruction manuals with our games!

Yes, I couldn't agree more and for the money Wargaming charge, they should post you a hardback copy, personally signed by Putin himself.

[El2aZeR]

6 hours ago, Figment said:

Trying to think a bit out of the box here: what if we make air combat more of a two-sided interaction?

 

Given that just making CV players lead with rockets has once again dropped the population down to <2%, it will kill the rework as already elaborated.

[CptBarney]

just 3 more pages lads.

 

 

[Sunleader]

I guess the Simple Answer is to just do it the Wargaming Way and make it more Random.

Just make AA into Real Secondaries actually Shooting with Bad Accuracy and Aircraft actually having Hitboxes etc.

 

Then Player Skill will become almost Irrelevant while AA Skills on the Commander will become Tremendously relevant as they would Buff Accuracy of AA etc.

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

1 hour ago, Sunleader said:

I guess the Simple Answer is to just do it the Wargaming Way and make it more Random.

Just make AA into Real Secondaries actually Shooting with Bad Accuracy and Aircraft actually having Hitboxes etc.

 

Then Player Skill will become almost Irrelevant while AA Skills on the Commander will become Tremendously relevant as they would Buff Accuracy of AA etc.

 

And to make it perfect, go the full circle and also make planes attacks more random... like with the CV player just sending out the flights, setting a course and then a target... and when the planes arrive at the target they do the attack all on their own...

uhm...

wait a moment...

that sounds kinda familiar...

 

Maybe we could just get RTS CVs in a slightly better balanced way back?

[BanzaiPiluso]

How to waste time:

 

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

3 minutes ago, BanzaiPiluso said:

How to waste time:

 

 

Now add two red submarines to that picture and think about how much more fun that will be...

[Samyuel]

20 minutes ago, BanzaiPiluso said:

How to waste time:

 

 

Would be exactly the same thing with a DD, even without CV.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

9 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

Would be exactly the same thing with a DD, even without CV.

soo.. when we exchange the red CV against a red DD... you really think it would survive as long? Even with a CV being able to spot it for the other ships? Without having to sail near the enemy map border to get in shooting range (because DDs usually don't share CVs habit to stay even more away from the battle than BaBBies)?

 

Yeah... it was to be expected...

[BanzaiPiluso]

23 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

Would be exactly the same thing with a DD, even without CV.

No, it woulnd't. I don't remember such an event in months to be sure.

It;s always a damn CV at the end.

[El2aZeR]

47 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

Would be exactly the same thing with a DD, even without CV.

 

Sure - if the DD focuses on nothing but surviving all match long, at which point it is griefing.

You're just a wealth of game knowledge, aren't you?

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, Samyuel said:

Would be exactly the same thing with a DD, even without CV.

That match has 8 DDs in it.

[mtm78]

6 hours ago, CptBarney said:

just 3 more pages lads.

To that note, I just clicked on the matchmaking thread, when I was really active I never was really behind on it. 

 

I have 200 unread pages, and I'm 100% sure nothing in those 200 pages is different than the content which came before it. Normally I would enjoy posting there in response to all the claims about rigged matchmaker, the posts telling us that for real no joke WG actually has patents which talk about a rigged matchmaker and patents for 'rigged' matchmaking for premium vehicles. Those were delicious posts which made me salivate ready to bite and tear into people keeping those rumors alive.

 

I'm pretty sure there are people looking at this thread in the same way, thinking we're laughably biased and wrong in all our assessments, and who come here just to read the latest whining in order to get a good laugh.

 

Sad realization for sure

[Samyuel]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

You're just a wealth of game knowledge, aren't you?

Thank you, thank you hope to be at your level one day.

[Aethervoxx]

3 hours ago, mtm78 said:

Sad realization for sure

These mega threads are where WoWS sends player ideas/concerns/suggestions along with these inter-personal exchanges on some obscure point - where WoWS wants these to die.

WoWS shuffles these topics into mega threads so their flunkies can control the narrative and, at the same time, isolate any meaningful discussion.

Who would read thru hundreds of pages of the several manure pile threads? Very few, if any.

 On topic (or off topic now I suppose) - I could care less about this thread now as it is all about the failure that is the Reworked CVs topic.

I want RTS CVs back (full stop, end of story) (&, ofc, what WoWS was like before the farce CV rework)

[One_Eye_Potato]

4 hours ago, mtm78 said:

To that note, I just clicked on the matchmaking thread, when I was really active I never was really behind on it. 

 

I have 200 unread pages, and I'm 100% sure nothing in those 200 pages is different than the content which came before it. Normally I would enjoy posting there in response to all the claims about rigged matchmaker, the posts telling us that for real no joke WG actually has patents which talk about a rigged matchmaker and patents for 'rigged' matchmaking for premium vehicles. Those were delicious posts which made me salivate ready to bite and tear into people keeping those rumors alive.

 

I'm pretty sure there are people looking at this thread in the same way, thinking we're laughably biased and wrong in all our assessments, and who come here just to read the latest whining in order to get a good laugh.

 

Sad realization for sure

I see, so we're all a delusional mob chasing a non existent conspiracy theory.  Damn, I knew I shouldn't have booked that holiday to New Mexico.  

Oh well, I can always cancel and go to Loch Ness instead.

 

In the meantime can you please go to the trouble of explaining why you are right and we're so wrong.  I'd be be ever so pleased to read it, as I think there are genuine problems with the CV rework and I've yet to read anything that alters that belief.

 

Maybe, you could be the first?

 

The truth is out there .......

[mtm78]

I think you missed your morning coffee as you're reacting in a way which has no relevance to what I said unless you're misinterpreting ;)

[Molly_Delaney]

Now that WG has implemented subs which can dive and surface can we now have altitiude control on aircraft?

I want to be able to fly high in dive bombers to avoid flak and do sea skimming torpedo attacks as was done for real.

 

Will trade spotting for altitiude; high up don't spot accurately, low down don't spot so far.

 

[Cronos]

WG doesnt care what you suggest

 

Look at the new soviet T8 premium CV.

WG tried to change the rocket attacks so that its harder to kill DDs for the past year. 

 

Now they squeeze out the Tschkalow which eats DDs alive with skip bombers and HE bombers.

 

Despite all the outcry in general about CVs and the double CV season, plenty of people will still buy in. 

In half a year the Tschkalow will get nerfed and nobody will play it anymore. 

 

That is just filthy business practise.