How I would fix aircraft carriers

[OM40]

*back story: in case you aren't aware of what's going on lately with the game I'll try to sum it up as best as I can.

Clan battles season 9 witnessed the arrival of CVs in our beloved team-oriented game mode, looking on it from an outside perspective, it sounds like a good thing that now we have all classes represented in CBs but in reality it's the complete opposite (if you'd like to read about it more here is the link)

 

Now WG said that they acknowledge us and claims that they listen to our feedback and that they are working to fix aircraft carriers, however, looking at the dev blogs about the cv changes, it's not looking too good, instead of tackling the fundamental issues the Devs are trying to treat the symptoms, what this means is it doesn't matter how many numbers they change the real problems will always stay there.

Now these decisions are so infuriating for the player base, yes the player base, some individuals say that the recent outrage is nothing but a loud minority that refuse to adapt and that they are stuck in their old ways, but in any game/sport the veterans are the ones that know the most about the game and they know what's the best for it in terms of the fun factor, and these people were being ignored since the beginning, no one listened to them and the fact that this outrage about CVs in CBs reached every clan at every skill level means that now, it’s not just the veterans are having problems with this, it's the whole player base.

 

Now, before I start explaining my prototype and how I personally envision CVs let's agree on some points, I do not wish for the removal of CVs from CBs or the game, but fixing and balancing a whole class will take time and putting everyone through another season of this is simply wrong, so the best course of actions is to bench them, fix them, TEST THEM, and finally reintroduce them into CBs again.

 

*the 1st steps:

 

It is undeniable that aircraft carriers were historically the top dogs and the strongest most effective warships during WW2, but to be completely historically accurate, WW2 wasn’t really that fun for all parties involved, so to keep our game fun and balanced, historical accuracy can take a back seat, so counterplay is important.

 

Fixing CVs mean fixing cv/surface ships interaction (spotting and AA), for spotting what I suggest is that planes should have limited spotting capabilities so it doesn't get abused like the system we currently have, so I'd say plane spotting should have a delay just like radar, we should also give them a limited spotting range so any ship outside that range can be spotted on the minimap but not rendered for the rest of the team to long-range farm, what does this mean is if the carrier wishes to spot a ship for his teammates he has to pursue the ship and not just leave a plane loitering nearby that will do the job and this will also allow the targeted ship to get some distance from the plane to drop off and disengage, regarding AA the fixes are simple, AA skills aft/bft/mAA and AA modules should significantly improve the range damage and the accuracy of AA and DeffAA consumable should get the panic effect back so ships with low AA damage output can still defend themselves. 

In addition to all of this, carriers should carry a limited number of planes, when surface ships lose AA montes, those are gone forever so why should a carrier have a plane factory onboard? This means that the CV player should be aware of the risks he is taking dropping an AA platform and he should be punished for misplaying and of course a time delay penalty should be given in case of the loss of an entire squad...NO MORE THROWING BECAUSE CV JUST CAN.

 

at the start of every battle, battleships, cruisers and destroyers play the sailing simulator mini-game for 1 or 2 minutes (depending on the tier and map) until they get into engagement range and the game actually starts, the CV should follow the same rules, so a preparation delay in the start should level the odds for everyone to get into position, being spotted 30 seconds into the game and struck in spawn is just not acceptable.

 

The RTS was an overwhelming system to play for a lot of people due to a large number of squads to manage in the higher tiers and the rework moved from that to give you only the control of one only “avatar” because according to the Devs, us the player base cannot handle 2 thoughts at the same time which is very insulting to put bluntly, you are not even allowed to jump back to you carrier hull to navigate your ship or to use your consumables, and the solution was even more insulting automatic consumables and a very unreliable autopilot, the reasoning is that the devs want the players to focus on flying planes and striking and sailing the ship isn’t that important, but this is world of warships it’s not world of warplanes, sailing ships is important to us. SO CARRIER HULL CONTROL IS A MUST.

 

*the prototype:

 

 

As you can see, there is slightly more stuff on the screen than the current CVs and slightly less than the RTS CVs, what we have here from left to right is “Carrier Hull”, “Fighter” squad, “Attack” squad, “Dive Bomber” squad, “Torpedo Bomber” squad and all these squadrons have ONE SINGLE ATTACK (except the fighter squad). the rest are consumables and whatever consumables the CVs get, there has to be the choice between auto and manual consumables.

now, at the start of the game, the CV will have to wait for the preparation of the planes, depending on the tier nation and the special “gimmick” of the carrier the preparation time will vary, after the timer is up the CV player can start launching planes by selecting the squad he wants to launch and press the launch keybinding, the CV can launch the squad and fly it around and start spotting or striking just like we have in the current system or he can waypoint the squad and launch another squad following the same process, the carrier can have all the squadrons in the air at the same time, however, he can only control them (alongside the carrier hull) sequentially(one at the a time) and not simultaneously, what this means is if he switches between squadrons, the one he just left will just stay loitering around (unless the cv waypoints it to go somewhere on the map) and so the multiple squads system doesn’t get abused for sake of spotting, all squads will get a timer (simulating fuel because logically no plane can stay up for ever), this timer will of course vary depending on tier and nation, when the timer runs out the squad will be forced back to the carrier, now the next fun part begins, depending on how many losses that squad sustained, the penalty timer will vary, the more planes you lose the bigger the penalty, if you lose no planes, you have no penalty and you can lunch the squad immediately (note that if you drop your planes will go back to the carrier and the same process will start).

 

I believe this system will be a much smoother transition than what we had in 0.8.0, players will still have the option of auto consumables, sailing their carrier with autopilot, different squads that they can use one by one if they choose to and the way to attack is the same. Also, this system will allow players to control more than one squad at the time if they are capable of doing so and the idea appeals to them and of course they can manage their carrier and carefully navigate it near islands (let’s say some of us still have doubts about the efficiency of autopilot).

 

1-Fighter squad :

This might sound weird but a player controlled fighter squad is necessary, the AI fighter squad is simply not cutting it, CVs should be able to counter each other and not by going somewhere and press a button and then pray to RNG that your fighters agro on the enemy squad, so all fighter consumables should be removed and protecting your teammates from aerial attacks should be one of the CV duties. Also this dogfight between carriers will add a new and possibly a very fun engagement to the game.

 

How will fighter squad work:

It's pretty straight forward, just like you lineup a torpedo or a rocket strike, you lineup your fighters and go for some strafing runs, fighters cannot strafe while turning they need to be going straight, now this is the only squad that will have multiple runs depending on how much ammunition you have which will differ between tiers, nations, specific ships and can be improved by upgrades and captain skills, strafe damage will also differ between those alongside the squadron size, the bigger the squad, the wider the strafe area (wider strafe area=higher chance of inflicting more dmg)

    

 

Bigger squads aren't necessarily always better, bigger squads will turn worse so lining up a strafe run will be harder, smaller squads will out turn them and they will be a bigger target for AA so a higher chance of being shot down. The player will have a spray timer (simulating the ammo) and by holding mouse 1 he will start strafing and when he release it the strafe run stops, so the player can control his ammo and he is not tied up to a fixed number of strafes so the if the player is reckless with his strafes he will lose a lot of ammo and the eventually the squad will be forced back to his carrier faster.

 

2- Attack squad :

These are by far the most controversial type of planes in the rework just for their insane effectiveness against destroyers and their annoyingly ease of use, these things are just point click and click again and the DD is half hp, the current rockets we have ingame behave more like missiles and less like rockets, the accuracy and the dmg output of these things are off the charts, some are even a menace to the most heavily armored ships in the game and they work like a guaranteed damage source.

How can these things stay in the game and not be straight up broken:

I- the will only have ONE SINGLE STRIKE.

II- the aiming reticle should be super sensitive to the planes maneuvering, after all these are rockets and not guided missiles, so even a slight change in direction the reticle will go significantly bigger.

III- the rockets shouldn’t converge to a single point in the reticle, so the rockets will evenly cover the whole reticle and not be concentrated in one area.

 

3- Dive bombers squad :

DBs always had the reputation of being insanely powerful, historically and in the game both before and after the rework, especially AP Dive bombers, they could wipe out a ship with a single strike pre 0.8.0 and they can still do the same with multiple stikes with the same squad, I believe DBs should keep their potential of neutralizing any type of vessel, I suggest that DBs of course like the other strike squadrons should only have 1 strike at a time, the aiming reticle should be sensitive to movement (maneuvering left or right and speeding up) the longer and the more steady the strike is, the smaller the reticle will be, this means that the drops will take longer allowing the targeted ship to have more time for counter play.

 

Something I would like to see added is different types of bombs and payloads, the bigger the payload you select the bigger the alpha and potential damage you have however it will have a bigger impact on the flight performance of your bombers.

 

4-Torpedo Bombers squad :

TBs are very effective in dealing with big ships pushing a flank and if these ships lack the AA power to fend for themselves and have no carrier support, TBs will not only spot and deal damage, they will force these ships to manoeuver to minimize the damage taken, this is a good thing, however multiple strike runs within the same squad make it very easy and very forgiving for the CV player to annihilate these ships and missing the 1st drop isn’t a big deal there is more to come. 

Having one strike at the time will give the opposition a fair chance to try and dodge and will punish the CV player for the bad drop (he will have to fly all the way back to drop that ship again).

 

Every nation can have different unique patterns for the TBs or different torpedo characteristics. 

examples : 

*deep water torps

*smaller squads (the torps will converge more)

*dual torp planes, the squad is more sluggish but they carry double the payload and have high potential

*long range torps but the planes are slower (super fast torps but very low alpha, very slow torps but much higher alpha)

And the list goes on and on, there is no shortage of ideas and suggestions provided by the community.

 

 

One more thing that I wanted to add but not sure where to write it so I'll just put it right here:

I feel like the current system is a bit rigid in terms of variety, you know for sure that every carrier (except some) have one rocket squad one DB squad one TB squad, there is no customization in terms of carrier loadout and I think we should get some but within reason, I suggest that we can choose to drop a squad for an extra alternate squad from the other types but you can’t have more than two of the same squad type, so, for example, you can sacrifice your attack squad to have one extra fighter squad so now you have a loadout of 2F-1DB-1TB, or you can drop the fighters and attack squad for extra DBs and TBs squads so the loadout is 2DB-2TB (very selfish but in some cases is a legitimate choice) or any other combination, this will allow you to play your carrier the way it suits you.

---

In the end, this is my opinion on how carriers should function in the game, what about you? Share your ideas here and let’s make this the most constructive thread the forums ever witnessed and maybe WG will pick up on an idea or two :) 

 

 

[DFens_666]

12 minutes ago, OM40 said:

In the end, this is my opinion on how carriers should function in the game, what about you? Share your ideas here and let’s make this the most constructive thread the forums ever witnessed and maybe WG will pick up on an idea or two :) 

 

Just to dump my idea in here, which i had a few weeks ago, but couldnt be arsed to make a threat about it. Got bored after playing 1 evening of T6 CBs and basicly havent touched the game after that out of frustration, and pretty much cant see myself returning to it. Even so much clan stuff going on where i might have a chance to play along, but fun is completely gone.

 

Back to my idea:

 

- the problem about strengthening individual AA is, that it would shutdown CVs completely, because everyone would do it, and i can understand that WG doesnt like it

- at the same time, protecting your friendly ships with AA is basicly impossible due to how AA is implemented. Skilled CV players can drop a group of ships regardless, bad players will fail on one ships.

 

Now how to change that:

- Make only AA count from the closest ship. Obviously, you can now buff AA for atleast some ships, to make it useful and make them be able to defend themselves properly from CVs (cruisers in general, but especially ships like Atlanta or US/RN Cruisers)

Example

CV is attacking a Shima and a Mino. as long as he is closer to the Shima, he will only receive AA damage from her. But when he gets closer to the Mino, he will take hefty AA damage.

 

- To offset the drop in AA, make multiple auras increase the reticle of the drop, the same way which DefAA used to do back in the days.

f.e. a CV attacks one ship alone, the reticle would be as small as it is right now

Attacking a group of 2-3 ships would give you a debuff of up to 50%, so some hits possible

Attacking a group of more than 4 ships should give full debuff, and the reticle should not get smaller at all, giving minimal damage only.

 

result:

We can have dedicated AA ships, no reason CVs need to be able to screw everything.

Multiple ships in one spot will make it harder for every CV regardless if he is a noob or a Unicum. The huge skillgap is still a major issue regarding CVs, where a bad CV dies to one ship, and a SU CV will strike ships within a blob of 4 or more ships.

Make AA skills and modules more useful again, since individual AA balance is now possible without breaking the game for CVs.

[lovelacebeer]

A very interesting and well thought through suggestion how I really wish WG would give a lot of these ideas some serious thought but I doubt it. 

 

I will provide a better reply with some of my own thoughts when I have time but I would like to leave this little point of interest, at the time of writing the only person who answered that they enjoyed this current clan battles is also someone who doesn't participate in clan battles. Pretty much sums up the state of the game...

[Jethro_Grey]

Instead of trying to fix a class that is broken by definition,  it'd be much easier and smarter to remove it entirely or lock it in its own game mode. Cause this would fix the game.

[rage1750]

Remove CV's and burn them on a pyre of balans.

I will even pay for the wood and pitch if it comes to that.

[TheBicentennialman]

sorry kids but  carriers are here for life get use to it

[aler1x]

Vor 1 Stunde, OM40 sagte:

[...]

Fixing CVs mean fixing cv/surface ships interaction (spotting and AA), for spotting what I suggest is that planes should have limited spotting capabilities so it doesn't get abused like the system we currently have, so I'd say plane spotting should have a delay just like radar, we should also give them a limited spotting range so any ship outside that range can be spotted on the minimap but not rendered for the rest of the team[...]

Honestly, why not remove team spotting for CVs completely? In the sense that a ship solely spotted by a plane would only be rendered to that plane's controller, period. That would also count for floatplanes aswell. In my opinion it is definitely not healthy for the game if a CV lights up the entire enemy team for their allies as you also stated yourself, but I'd actually go the extra mile and show plane-spotted ships only as outlines on the minimap to the CV's allies. That would give CVs a general intelligence role, i. e. where did that DD go?, but if you'd want to actually shoot that DD you'd have to spot it by more conventional means. Maybe give CVs a means to do so by assing a time- and charge-limited spotting plane consumable similar to fighters nowaday that would be implemented in the way you described (with limited sight range etc.), basically the CV's version of radar. As I understand you meant to go that way, again, why not go the extra mile? Or did I miss something?

 

Otherwise, I really like your idea. It's the first time I see someone coming up with an actual, thought-out plan on how to fix this whole mess, instead of patchy singular ideas...

[aler1x]

Vor 2 Minuten, TheBicentennialman sagte:

sorry kids but  carriers are here for life get use to it

doesn't mean we have to accept that they will stay the way they are for all eternity, does it?

[DeviousDave02]

Really well written although I don't think the poll is needed tbh and distracts from your post.

 

Only main gripe as a CV main I have with this is:

30 minutes ago, OM40 said:

1-Fighter squad :

This might sound weird but a player controlled fighter squad is necessary, the AI fighter squad is simply not cutting it, CVs should be able to counter each other and not by going somewhere and press a button and then pray to RNG that your fighters agro on the enemy squad, so all fighter consumables should be removed and protecting your teammates from aerial attacks should be one of the CV duties. Also this dogfight between carriers will add a new and possibly a very fun engagement to the game.

 

How will fighter squad work:

It's pretty straight forward, just like you lineup a torpedo or a rocket strike, you lineup your fighters and go for some strafing runs, fighters cannot strafe while turning they need to be going straight, now this is the only squad that will have multiple runs depending on how much ammunition you have which will differ between tiers, nations, specific ships and can be improved by upgrades and captain skills, strafe damage will also differ between those alongside the squadron size, the bigger the squad, the wider the strafe area (wider strafe area=higher chance of inflicting more dmg)

    

 

Bigger squads aren't necessarily always better, bigger squads will turn worse so lining up a strafe run will be harder, smaller squads will out turn them and they will be a bigger target for AA so a higher chance of being shot down. The player will have a spray timer (simulating the ammo) and by holding mouse 1 he will start strafing and when he release it the strafe run stops, so the player can control his ammo and he is not tied up to a fixed number of strafes so the if the player is reckless with his strafes he will lose a lot of ammo and the eventually the squad will be forced back to his carrier faster.

 

 

Now before you have a go at me, hear me out.

First off I LIKE THE IDEA it's something that would be cool to be able to control your fighters to dogfight BUT it won't work. I've thought about this before myself and keep running into the issue that your asking the CV player to give up on scoring damage (the thing that gets you money) to babysit surface ships which is a big ask as your only one player controlling one squadron at a time.

 

Now again this would be fine as it would be team work, similar to scouting BUT I guarantee that EVERY SINGLE surface ship will be spamming "Provide AA fire support" Over and over and over and over again, all match, the second the enemy CV's planes come anywhere remotely near them before getting super salty when you don't get there ASAP in time to stop the enemy CV because you were protecting the other flank or heaven forbid you decide to launch a surface attacking squad instead of fighters.

 

The rage will be real.

 

The other issue you run into is that while your loitering around to kill the enemy CV's planes your not really doing anything else. If you recall the squadron to go bomb something then your team will whine that your not protecting them. You can't really go spotting as that would waste the squadrons HP that will be needed in a dogfight and might even lose vital planes that due to limited numbers could cripple you down the line. Worse it would let the enemy CV know where your planes are so that he could just go bomb the other flank or if you were weakened enough simply come straight for you to wipe out your fighters with his own.

 

Lastly it would bring back the issue of CV shutdown where the top dog CV with the nation who has stronger fighters (It's WarGaming... we all know how this pans out) will simply shoot down all the weaker CV's planes thus eliminating him from the match or forcing him to sit and do nothing as the second he launches any aircraft the fighter Ace will be all over him (hands up I did this more than once in the RTS days to poor smucks in the Hosho when i was in the Langley)

 

This also eliminates the other CV from the match too as he's on over watch duty resulting in a very boring game however, again, the second he leaves guard duty you can bet the chat will explode with "NOOB CV, WHY YOU NO LOCK DOWN ENEMY PLANES!, REPORT REPORT REPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

 

Now something I thought of that MIGHT work is if the CV player launched fighters, lets say two squadrons bound to 4 and 5,  similar to how he launches other aircraft (they have deck space and restoration times), however these planes are controlled by the SURFACE ships.

 

Basically you add another button to surface ships hud in a CV match that says something like "Call for fighters" hitting this sends a request to the closest fighter squadron to come to your aid and puts a team message in chat that you requested for fighters so people can more easily keep track of where they are. It also locks out other ships requests for 25 seconds when they get there to prevent someone else just yanking them off you straight away (after which you can't call them back if called away for 10 seconds to prevent you from perma frightening yourself)

 

When the squadron is over you another chat message is sent to notify the team that you have the fighters while the fighter call button changes to "Intercept" where by you target an enemy squadron by looking at them and then hit the button to tell the fighters to go in for the kill. You also gain above the button a small UI element telling you the state of the squadron and how much ammo it has left (this is displayed to all team members on the tac map screen as well)

 

Fighters would then move to fire on the enemy planes, slotting in behind them and chasing them dealing moderate damage per burst of gunfire to random planes in the squadron (if the game calculates the burst hits) while also causing the squadron to handle worse (turn slower and have a lower cruising speed) due to weaving around to dodge incoming fire and also aim worse on an attack run by aiming slower but also being capped at 60% accuracy preventing a perfect drop/attack.

 

The idea here being that the fighters enhance your AA and survival chances rather than simply nuking the enemy squadron.

 

The fighters will pursue the enemy planes for 30 seconds to any distance and indefinitely (until they run out of ammo) within 8km of the ship they are defending UNLESS they come under AA fire from an enemy ship in which case they will continue attacking for five seconds before breaking off and fleeing the enemy AA zone back to the allied ship they were protecting.

 

If the allied ship is within the enemy AA zone then the fighters will move further away to avoid hostile AA but still remain close by to offer assistance when needed.

 

The CV player has a UI element that tells him the state of the fighters, where they are, what they are doing and how much ammo they have left as well as receiving an audio warning when they get down to 20% squadron strength or ammo left. They can over ride other players by selecting the squadron on the tac map with the 4 or 5 button while it's traveling from one place to another (before the 25 second lock out) and then hitting F to recall them to the CV or clicking on an allied ship to send them there instead (to prevent back camping BB's in no danger from enemy aircraft from hogging the planes.)

 

This puts the onus on fighter cover management not on the CV player but on the team instead, they have to work together to get the planes in the best spots and over the right ships while CV player is just there to launch/recover the fighters and govern over any disputes over who gets cover while doing his own thing by bombing stuff in the mean time.

[TheBicentennialman]

you will accept it and like it WG make the rules here what they say goes

[OM40]

1 minute ago, TheBicentennialman said:

you will accept it and like it WG make the rules here what they say goes

how about you take a back seat on this one you clearly have no clue what are you talking about judging buy the minuscule number of games you played, this is a WG game but we are the players of the game, this thread is a suggestion on how it is possible to have CVs in the game and keep the balance.

[TheBicentennialman]

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/132108-general-cv-related-discussions/

^ there is all ready open cv post no need to keep openin new ones

[aler1x]

Vor 5 Minuten, DeviousDave02 sagte:

Now before you have a go at me, hear me out.

First off I LIKE THE IDEA it's something that would be cool to be able to control your fighters to dogfight BUT it won't work. I've thought about this before myself and keep running into the issue that your asking the CV player to give up on scoring damage (the thing that gets you money) to babysit surface ships which is a big ask as your only one player controlling one squadron at a time.

Actually I think it could work, as the original idea included the ability to have multiple squadrons up in the air while actively controlling only one of them. So you could just park your fighters near your allies while going for a strike (or take them with you for cover), and when enemy planes approach you'd switch to the fighters, shoot them down, switch back and continue striking. And as the individual strikes would be much shorter due to them being singular strikes instead of multiple flights striking one after another I think you'd have to be very unlucky for those enemy planes to be approaching while you're mid-strike and unable to respond. But to avoid even that: Maybe add something like idle fighters behaving basically like fighters do now, just much less effective damagewise? That would also take one burden off the shoulders of less skilled or less aware players as their fighters would at least do something even without them intervening.

 

Actually I like the fighter squadron idea as an intermediate, though obviously not yet perfect design. And, no offense, I tend to like it slightly more than your suggestion.

[DeviousDave02]

35 minutes ago, TheBicentennialman said:

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/132108-general-cv-related-discussions/

^ there is all ready open cv post no need to keep openin new ones

Except that one is pretty much a CV complaints dumping ground where even moderators fear to tread and is ignored by WarGamings staff as little more than a containment thread

 

Once in a blue moon a good idea gets brought up there before being swallowed by the constant arguing and artillery shot sniping duels between pro and anti CV players.

 

You can't blame people really for wanting to open another thread to actually discuss ideas for a change. (not that it will be long before this one gets derailed and/or locked)

 

On that note:

24 minutes ago, aler1x said:

Actually I think it could work, as the original idea included the ability to have multiple squadrons up in the air while actively controlling only one of them. So you could just park your fighters near your allies while going for a strike (or take them with you for cover), and when enemy planes approach you'd switch to the fighters, shoot them down, switch back and continue striking. And as the individual strikes would be much shorter due to them being singular strikes instead of multiple flights striking one after another I think you'd have to be very unlucky for those enemy planes to be approaching while you're mid-strike and unable to respond. But to avoid even that: Maybe add something like idle fighters behaving basically like fighters do now, just much less effective damagewise? That would also take one burden off the shoulders of less skilled or less aware players as their fighters would at least do something even without them intervening.

 

Actually I like the fighter squadron idea as an intermediate, though obviously not yet perfect design. And, no offense, I tend to like it slightly more than your suggestion.

 You know, totally missed that part (what I get for getting into a debate at 1 in the morning )

 

Still wouldn't work though as it's almost going straight back to the RTS system with the added issue that your other squadrons are loitering around to get shot down and you can only control one at a time manually to attack while also having to plot out evasive maneuvers for the others when they get spotted by the enemy and engaged by flak/the enemy CV (which goes against WarGamings CV policy of controlling one thing at at time only - I mean we're having to fight tooth and nail to let them have our hull be controllable too so getting multi squadrons is going to be a big no no, hence why my suggestion will never happen as well )

 

Another side option/variant to the OP's idea could be to make it so all aircraft can engage other aircraft with anti air guns that are a secondary weapon that you can toggle too.

 

With attack planes being the best at it while Torpedo bombers/Dive bombers are worse at it but have automatic tail gunners for defense.

 

That way you don't have to choose between doing damage and fighting off the enemy CV. But again you'll run into the issue that everyone will expect you to chase down the enemy CV's planes at all times and will cry and rage if your not as well as the better aerial ACE shutting down the other player.

 

The OP's ideas are good and it would work if multi squadron control was on the table but if that was the case we might as well go back to RTS and be done with it.

 

It's a toughie this conundrum, probably why WeeGee made such a hash of it.

 

P.S it's totally cool if you like his idea more than mine and no offence taken , TBH I like his idea (more than mine) and would be happy if it was ingame... I just know Wargaming would never run with it as it's too close to the RTS system.

[asalonen]

41 minutes ago, aler1x said:

Honestly, why not remove team spotting for CVs completely? In the sense that a ship solely spotted by a plane would only be rendered to that plane's controller, period.

It would detach the CV player from the teamplay. One of the basic goals of the rework was taking away the high alpha from CV's, and instead have the CV spot the enemies for nearby friendlies so that they can join the attack. If you take that capability away, CV planes would need a damage buff or the class would lose a lot of influence.

[Nit0]

1 hour ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Instead of trying to fix a class that is broken by definition,  it'd be much easier and smarter to remove it entirely or lock it in its own game mode. Cause this would fix the game.

No

[Nit0]

Alternative to spotting is a "radio" consumable for all planes. Click it and you will be able to spot for your teammates like you do in the game now, but it's on a timer and you only have a set amount of consumables before it's depleted. 

[WilliWankaChocoFab]

There are thousands of carrier matches with thousands of carrier players every day

and a handful of people wants to have the ships changed to their likings ~.~

[OM40]

Just now, WilliWankaChocoFab said:

a handful of people

this is just wrong, majority of player dislike CV games and prefer not to be in one 

[WilliWankaChocoFab]

Hakuryū and Midway had 2 million matches

https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/4179605200,Hakuryu
https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/4179605488,Midway

 

/2 as one carrier per side
=1 million matches since 29.01.2019

 

/ ~ 550 days roughly

 

= ~ 1800 T10 matches a day with 3600 cv captains/captain plays per day, ~ 100000 T10 carrier captains, or reoccurring carrier captain match participation per month.

It is like using the player report button in the game, a bit of venting for a few frustrated.

 

Taking all carriers in to account it probably is a quarter-million carrier captains or reoccurring carrier captain match participations per month, this as a guestimate.

[Excavatus]

very well thought and written post. 

Sadly nothing new in it from the cv discussion perspective... 

 

Almost all of these issues are discussed into great detail and almost all of these suggestions has been posted in one form or another. 

So, even though I'd like to jump into the discussion so bad, and this is a great post... 

 

To be fair and equal, this post has to be locked. 

Please use the suggestions thread or CV discussion thread..