The One Carrier Change To Fix the game and CB!

[Kazomir]

Make ships spotted by carrier to not be able to be "Locked on" by enemy shooting ships. You will still be able to see them and where they go, but you do not have telemetry data as if you would if a ship is spotting the enemy.

 

Is it not logical? Planes do not have optical  and gunnery rangefinders and such that provide information to the fleet, they can only say "this ship is uhhhh 30 kilometers that way...ish". But you need an actual ship within spotting distance to be able to take telemetry data to relay to other ships within the fleet. 

 

That way spotted destroyers and cruisers wont get insta-gibbed while you still have knowledge of where they are going, and you don't need to introduce crazy AA and Plane detectability changes that are more complicated than rocket science.

 

PS: Thank me later WoWs game and balance devs.This is a free trial idea I give for free. I am looking for an underpaid job as a game dev, hire me for more genius suggestions like this.

[Beastofwar]

The thing is players want CV spotting so they rack up high AP damage numbers on an enemy broadside traveling Cruisers right after match start. They don't want to wait for minutes untill an allied DD can do that, and by the time it does only spots an enemy Cruiser that has reached i'ts island hugging ( now immune to being insta-blapped ) or DD ambushing ( allied DD dies and spotting goes black ) position. Players want CV to spot enemy DD so they can be destroyed quickly before they spot for the enemy team and by that sink half the allied fleet.

 

And because many players are at the same time they want CV spotting nerfed.  And then they complain why spotting is delayed so they cannot fire for minutes and are in the dark how the enemy deploys.

 

A good indication to what happens when CV do not spot is German AP fighters played to their strenghts : many do not engage DD with them and the result is often a loss and reports for not Search&Destroy the enemy DD. Because many players also have no clue how to fight an enemy DD when a CV does not do it and allied DD explode in caps as usual. They type "gg" then and consider it a loss......for the clueless in powerless anti-fire builds they are.

 

Not all players though......but specialized RDF guided Radar/Long range Hydro carrying DD's and Cruisers that blitz enemy DD before they know they are dead, and who don't need CV spotting to destroy enemy DD are scarce indeed.

 

WG does apparently not listen to such players that do not know what they really want and that is supposedly a good thing.

 

 

[_DeathWing_]

Sacrilege

[Kazomir]

2 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

The thing is players want CV spotting so they rack up high AP damage numbers on an enemy broadside traveling Cruisers right after match start. They don't want to wait for minutes untill an allied DD can do that, and by the time it does only spots an enemy Cruiser that has reached i'ts island hugging ( now immune to being insta-blapped ) or DD ambushing ( allied DD dies and spotting goes black ) position. Players want CV to spot enemy DD so they can be destroyed quickly before they spot for the enemy team and by that sink half the allied fleet.

 

And because many players are at the same time they want CV spotting nerfed.  And then they complain why spotting is delayed so they cannot fire for minutes and are in the dark how the enemy deploys.

 

A good indication to what happens when CV do not spot is German AP fighters played to their strenghts : many do not engage DD with them and the result is often a loss and reports for not Search&Destroy the enemy DD. Because many players also have no clue how to fight an enemy DD when a CV does not do it and allied DD explode in caps as usual. They type "gg" then and consider it a loss......for the clueless in powerless anti-fire builds they are.

 

Not all players though......but specialized RDF guided Radar/Long range Hydro carrying DD's and Cruisers that blitz enemy DD before they know they are dead, and who don't need CV spotting to destroy enemy DD are scarce indeed.

 

WG does apparently not listen to such players that do not know what they really want and that is supposedly a good thing.

 

 

 

Why do you think cruisers rush to hide behind islands ASAP? They get spotted by carriers and devastating struck or crippled before they are even able to get in range of an enemy ship. DDs are afraid to push a cap for fear of death by plane spotting, and BB's hide on the borders because DDs are too afraid to create space for them, because there is no cruiser anti DD and AA support behind them.

[Beastofwar]

2 hours ago, Kazomir said:

 

Why do you think cruisers rush to hide behind islands ASAP? They get spotted by carriers and devastating struck or crippled before they are even able to get in range of an enemy ship. DDs are afraid to push a cap for fear of death by plane spotting, and BB's hide on the borders because DDs are too afraid to create space for them, because there is no cruiser anti DD and AA support behind them.

 

It's only bad when the enemy does that you know.....

[El2aZeR]

5 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

The thing is players want CV spotting so they rack up high AP damage numbers on an enemy broadside traveling Cruisers right after match start.

 

And ofc you have the various statements from a representative amount of players backing this claim up.

Otherwise this would be another one of your pathetic lies, no? Shocker.

[HaachamaShipping]

8 hours ago, Kazomir said:

Make ships spotted by carrier to not be able to be "Locked on" by enemy shooting ships. You will still be able to see them and where they go, but you do not have telemetry data as if you would if a ship is spotting the enemy.

Pop spotter plane, lock onto nearby ship, predict movement, shoot, ..., profit???

[SkollUlfr]

main problem with cv spotting is the way most people using cv go and hide at the back of the map, and stay there immune to risk for the whole battle.

 

what is needed is the radio mechanics from WoT so that if the planes are too far from the cv, the ship only shows up on the map, this would make the cv need to move forward to be able to function, or be faced with a lot of red circles and the words "too far from carrier" over them.

 

when i use cv, i try to move as far forward as possible to get the prodigious aaa a good work out. this is a function of cv that needs to be worked on by wg, and wont work at tX due to high tier gunnery, and the way spotting works.

 

with a combination of applying the radio mechanic from WoT so planes cant relay spotting if the CV is too far away, and giving CV a radio jamming halo effect against being air spotted, this would allow carriers a much better ability to be part of the team, not just hiding at the back immune from damage.

 

8 hours ago, Kazomir said:

Why do you think cruisers rush to hide behind islands ASAP? They get spotted by carriers and devastating struck or crippled before they are even able to get in range of an enemy ship. DDs are afraid to push a cap for fear of death by plane spotting, and BB's hide on the borders because DDs are too afraid to create space for them, because there is no cruiser anti DD and AA support behind them.

shell velocities being dropped by 25 to 30% would allow defence by manoeuvre for cruisers meaning bb had to move in or get dodged. this combined with my radio spotting suggestion would solve the issue.

[Kazomir]

5 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

Pop spotter plane, lock onto nearby ship, predict movement, shoot, ..., profit???

Well that requires more skill in prediction and a spotter plane equipped in the first place. And even then, you dont have the "lock on" Dispersion bonus. It is fair enough.

[Pikkozoikum]

14 hours ago, Kazomir said:

Make ships spotted by carrier to not be able to be "Locked on" by enemy shooting ships. You will still be able to see them and where they go, but you do not have telemetry data as if you would if a ship is spotting the enemy.

 

Is it not logical? Planes do not have optical  and gunnery rangefinders and such that provide information to the fleet, they can only say "this ship is uhhhh 30 kilometers that way...ish". But you need an actual ship within spotting distance to be able to take telemetry data to relay to other ships within the fleet. 

 

That way spotted destroyers and cruisers wont get insta-gibbed while you still have knowledge of where they are going, and you don't need to introduce crazy AA and Plane detectability changes that are more complicated than rocket science.

 

PS: Thank me later WoWs game and balance devs.This is a free trial idea I give for free. I am looking for an underpaid job as a game dev, hire me for more genius suggestions like this.

While that is not a bad idea, this causes also some weird function. There will be targets that you can lock on and somtimes not, as surface ship you won't know, when it is spotted by planes and when it is spotted by ships, you have to check with lock on. For a good player it would be no problem, just a little annoying. Though bad players will go with auto-lock on and won't even notice, that they have a lock on or not.

 

Thus your idea needs more interface changes, that aircraft spotted targets are clearly shown as aircraft spotted. Maybe a different map color icon. Or you can lock on the target, but the lock on icon is a red cross, showing that the aim is bad. or something.

 

 

12 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

The thing is players want CV spotting so they rack up high AP damage numbers on an enemy broadside traveling Cruisers right after match start. They don't want to wait for minutes untill an allied DD can do that, and by the time it does only spots an enemy Cruiser that has reached i'ts island hugging ( now immune to being insta-blapped ) or DD ambushing ( allied DD dies and spotting goes black ) position. Players want CV to spot enemy DD so they can be destroyed quickly before they spot for the enemy team and by that sink half the allied fleet.

 

And because many players are at the same time they want CV spotting nerfed.  And then they complain why spotting is delayed so they cannot fire for minutes and are in the dark how the enemy deploys.

 

A good indication to what happens when CV do not spot is German AP fighters played to their strenghts : many do not engage DD with them and the result is often a loss and reports for not Search&Destroy the enemy DD. Because many players also have no clue how to fight an enemy DD when a CV does not do it and allied DD explode in caps as usual. They type "gg" then and consider it a loss......for the clueless in powerless anti-fire builds they are.

 

Not all players though......but specialized RDF guided Radar/Long range Hydro carrying DD's and Cruisers that blitz enemy DD before they know they are dead, and who don't need CV spotting to destroy enemy DD are scarce indeed.

 

WG does apparently not listen to such players that do not know what they really want and that is supposedly a good thing.

 

 

Though they are testing the spotting mechanic and in the current version the concealment of ships will be halfed for air planes :3

[1MajorKoenig]

While there are things I would have done very differently about aerial spotting I don’t like the suggestion above.

 

Spotting for and having your team focus (=lock on) a certain enemy is one of the very valuable and fun elements / teamwork of playing CVs.

[Beastofwar]

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Otherwise this would be another one of your pathetic lies, no?

 

Any other words/reactions in your vocabulary ?

 

That would be shocking !

[Pikkozoikum]

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

pathetic lies

In my definition of lies he needs to know about the truth. I would assume, he thinks what he is saying is the truth. So it's not a lie, in worst case only a false assumption.

[1MajorKoenig]

9 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

In my definition of lies he needs to know about the truth. I would assume, he thinks what he is saying is the truth. So it's not a lie, in worst case only a false assumption.

And in my book it’s a personal attack and another violation of the forum rules 

 

EDIT: but as he isn’t bringing any facts anyway I tend to ignore it by now 

[Butterdoll]

Do you want to fix cvs?

 

 

Buff AA.

 

Bring back the fighters planes, not as bots, not as a consumable but as a controllable unit by the player.

 

But clearly WG doesn't want that judging by the new upcoming skills.

 

[Beastofwar]

12 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

Do you want to fix cvs?

 

 

Buff AA.

 

Bring back the fighters planes, not as bots, not as a consumable but as a controllable unit by the player.

 

But clearly WG doesn't want that judging by the new upcoming skills.

 

 

I am all for air supriority fighters but not with the horrible inbalanced (air) strafing sweep mechanics they once had.

 

And there should be proper reward for killing aircraft then.....as you cannot kill ships and kill aircraft at the same time and something needs to enable you to top the score list just as well as any other class.

 

As a side note : most of the bombers that are not too fast to be overtaken by fighters already seem to be packing defensive armaments. Maybe because some are older models. But still.....DD did pack detailed DC racks and launchers  and that became live too....

[1MajorKoenig]

5 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

Do you want to fix cvs?

 

 

Buff AA.

 

Bring back the fighters planes, not as bots, not as a consumable but as a controllable unit by the player.

 

But clearly WG doesn't want that judging by the new upcoming skills.

 

Well I wouldn’t agree. WG changes fighters with the new skills and give them potentially some purpose even - let see how that works out.

 

And second they are introducing many skills manipulating damage inflicted and taken and therefore trying to address the complaint  “can’t build for AA”. 

 

Let’s see how these play out eventually. 

 

 

PLUS: On the other hand I agree that manually controlled fighters would be cool but would arguably hard to implement in the existing mechanics. And I doubt WG is interested in that - they purposely removed fighters from the game and essentially went for a full

strike setup. But I agree that the current fighters are pretty bad and not a very interesting way to do it.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

That is an idea I would support. it sounds unique and wasn't mentioned yet. The only issue is however that spotting still kills the element of surprise. It would still help the ships that are airspotted out regarding survival especially DDs. 

[Butterdoll]

2 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

I am all for air supriority fighters but not with the horrible inbalanced (air) strafing sweep mechanics they once had.

 

And there should be proper reward for killing aircraft then.....as you cannot kill ships and kill aircraft at the same time and something needs to enable you to top the score list just as well as any other class.

Back in the last RTS days, deplaning the bastard was enough reward for me .

How large was my smile when i had +- 40 planes under my belt after a battle. (Bogue) 

Who cares about toping the score board when you look to the score board and you know you left your mark in there

[Yedwy]

24 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

Bring back the fighters planes, not as bots, not as a consumable but as a controllable unit by the player.

No, I dont want to play WOWP which with this method of controlling planes woud be the CV fighter play

[Butterdoll]

59 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well I wouldn’t agree. WG changes fighters with the new skills and give them potentially some purpose even - let see how that works out.

 

And second they are introducing many skills manipulating damage inflicted and taken and therefore trying to address the complaint  “can’t build for AA”. 

 

Let’s see how these play out eventually. 

 

 

PLUS: On the other hand I agree that manually controlled fighters would be cool but would arguably hard to implement in the existing mechanics. And I doubt WG is interested in that - they purposely removed fighters from the game and essentially went for a full

strike setup. But I agree that the current fighters are pretty bad and not a very interesting way to do it.

Yeah. New skills (correct me if i'm wrong)

 

Cvs

 

- + 1 fighter

 

- + 10 %  of range on the circle (when deploying fighters)

 

- + 5 damage in AP and HE bombs or rockets

 

- + 15 % on torps damage

 

they will be able to drop you 10 % closer to you.

 

they removed the fighters because they don't want to put two cv players against each other but doing so, they removed everything that could make an opposition up there , fighters and the AA nerf, cvs just have a free rein up, there unopposed .

Fighters just have to came back or the AA must be buffed...big time.

 

p.s. they even removed the rear gunner skill

 

 

 

 

[Butterdoll]

38 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

No, I dont want to play WOWP which with this method of controlling planes woud be the CV fighter play

Man,  if you put things in those terms

you already playing WoWP, the only difference is 

instead of a plane you have a squadron 

the reticule it's different. And you don't have that torp lane

you do it on sea instead of land mostly

the ships, you can sink them but they are very low res

you don't have cockpit view

 

In every mission you take, if you choose a bomber or a fighter bomber, you have to bomb

if you choose a fighter you have to take down the planes, if you go for a bomber that can lead you to the ground level or sea level

[1MajorKoenig]

21 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

Man,  if you put things in those terms

you already playing WoWP, the only difference is 

instead of a plane you have a squadron 

the reticule it's different. And you don't have that torp lane

you do it on sea instead of land mostly

the ships, you can sink them but they are very low res

you don't have cockpit view

 

In every mission you take, if you choose a bomber or a fighter bomber, you have to bomb

if you choose a fighter you have to take down the planes, if you go for a bomber that can lead you to the ground level or sea level

Sorry but not at all. WOWS planes don’t fly. They sail on a different level but there is absolutely no flying involved. It’s more like controlling a group of ships 

[Butterdoll]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Sorry but not at all. WOWS planes don’t fly. They sail on a different level but there is absolutely no flying involved. It’s more like controlling a group of ships 

Just like crocodiles, they fly, but very close to the ground 

[Beastofwar]

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Sorry but not at all. WOWS planes don’t fly. They sail on a different level but there is absolutely no flying involved. It’s more like controlling a group of ships 

 

More like controlling a salvo of shells ( that are bombs visualy )  or torpedo's even......that is probably how WG sees them game mechanic wise.