Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
CaptainObese

World of Warships balancing the CV rework proposal:

82 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NED]
Players
14 posts
6,614 battles

 

 

Since the implementation of the rework of the CV class in WOWS there has been a firm believe withing the WOWS community that the CV class is unbalanced. In this essay I want to talk in-depth about why I think CV’s are broken and how their issues should be resolved.

 

There are many problems in regard to the balancing aspect of the CV class in WOWS. Paradoxically: CV can strike anyone, anywhere at anytime on the map. CV’s are designed to do this hence the ability to do so is not the balancing problem. Is it unfair? For the player at the receiving end, yes, at least it feels that way. For the game as a whole? Not so much, because finishing ships that are low HP is part of the game. I will explain the reason surface ship-CV interaction feels unfair later.

 

The first issue is the incredible amount of unhealable damage that some CV’s are capable of doing. I am specifically talking about Richthoven rocketplanes and Richthoven + Hakuriu + Enterprise Dive-bombers. Is it unfair? For the player at the receiving end of them: absolutely since the only counter against it is RNG.  A good CV player can get a good drop off no matter the amount of dodging the opposing ships does.  The only way a ship cannot get hit is 1. If the drop is bad or 2. If RNjesus says NO to the CV and throws its accuracy out of the window.  Possible ways to fix this are, 1. Less alpha damage for the bombs thus reducing the amount of unhealable damage. 2. More bombs with less penetration thus reducing the amount of unhealable damage by changing citadels into normal penetrations. 3. Getting rid of AP bombs all together because losing half your HP (all of it in a worst-case scenario ) (and not being able to heal it back) in one flyover is not fun . In all of these scenarios the amount of drops should be increased because: Yes, a CV should be able to do lots of damage if played correctly just like any other ship in the game. No, a CV should not be able to dumpster a perfectly positioned Des Moins in just two drops. 

 

The second issue is the spotting that a CV does.  The fighter consumable is never used in the way it in intended too (Spoiler Alert). CV mains only use fighters to do spotting because spotting the enemy team is the most useful thing the fighters are capable of doing. 1 fighter squad lasts about 1 minute, one CV has around 10 of them, that means if used correctly that is at least 10 minutes of guaranteed misery for any BB, CA, CL and DD foolish enough to get spotted by them. Then there are the bomber squads themselves of course whom can spot any ship anywhere at any time. If radar gets a delay before the other ships in the team can see the enemy ship being radared, because otherwise it would be unfair for the enemy ship being radared, then why plane spotting doesn’t?

 

The third and main issue is the lack of two-way interaction between both CV’s and all the surface ships in a match. What I mean by this is that 1. The two opposing CV players do not interact much with each other during the match. It is very hard to counter an enemy CV if you are playing CV yourself. 2. Usually (at least the first 10 minutes of the match) the CV only attacks surface ships but for surface ships, harming the CV is virtually impossible. Yes, AA is a thing and that will hurt the CV a little but at the end of the day we all know that AA does not do much. 3. The general lack of counterplay does not make a CV-surface ship engagement fun to play for a surface ship.        

 

The way both of these issues can be resolved is: Upgrade the fighter consumable and make it useable to counter an enemy CV. Fighters are very broken right now. 1. They take forever to deploy. Once you call them, they fly down from the cloud, make 2 circles and then they are ready to attack. This delay takes around 5 seconds, but it feels like forever. The delay is just to long for the fighter to be useful to counter enemy squadrons. 2. They take too long to catch-up with enemy attack squads, in case of Richthoven rocket planes for example the fighters can’t catch-up to the rocket planes at all because the fighters are just too slow. 3. The fighters take too long to notice and tag onto an enemy squad flying through their bubble, sometimes they don’t tag at all because there is a delay. If fighters tag an enemy squad and catch-up to it, they will annihilate it from the sky. However, the fighters rarely ever do because the fighters are just too easy to dodge for the enemy CV.  The counter to the counter is too easy.

 

A competent CV player should be able to defend his team. Defending your however is an impossible task given that the counter to an enemy CV, your fighter consumable it so terrible at what it is designed to do, up to the point that CV players rather use the consumable to spot the enemy team. They use a consumable that is specifically designed to defend, to attack (spot) the enemy team. That cannot be the case any longer.

 

If the fighter consumable would be buffed, in a way that it immediately engages with enemy squadrons, the CV has an option to play defensive again instead of constantly dishing out damage by attacking the enemy team. I am imagining something like a Boom and Zoom aerial combat style (for all the warthunder players out there). If the fighter consumable is activated, a fighter squad will fly down from the clouds (thus there being a 1-2 second delay to allow some form of counterplay), pick off any enemy plane within the bubble and then leave after maybe 10-15 seconds. This implementation would fix two birds with one stone: 1. No more 1 minute of free spotting by fighters. 2. Direct counterplay in CV-CV combat and surface ship-CV combat. 

 

Yes, this idea is directly against the main purpose of the CV rework. However, I think that the balance between there being a skill gap and allowing counterplay is just not right in this iteration of our beloved game. 

 

This idea would make the skill gap bigger but there is no problem with there being a bigger skill gap. CV gameplay as of right now is stale and boring (unless you only like attacking, again, again and again like some sort of NPC). The option for direct counterplay would allow for more depth to the CV gameplay. As of right now, playing CV is just too easy, any monkey can do well in them, unlike any other class in WOWS. I can already imagine Richthoven players trying to use their speedy planes to pick off enemy squadrons like they are clay-pigeons. I can imagine both CV players calling in a fighter squad at the same time thus annihilating both their squads at the same time. The possibilities would be amazing.

 

Playing CV is very linear as of right now, you only attack, attack and attack. Bringing more depth into it by reworking the fighter consumable should 1. Make CV gameplay actually fun to play again. 2. Make CV more fun to play against (for CV and surface ships alike). 3. Make the fight against a CV at least more balanced. 4. Allow for the use of more diverse strategies. 5. Take away the torture of endlessly being spotted for BB players. 6. Allow the CV to counterplay DD’s but not in a way that it is unfair. 

 

If you have any questions or remarks, feel free to post them down below

 

Fair winds and following seas,

 

-CaptainObese.   

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
687 posts
3 minutes ago, CaptainObese said:

Playing CV is very linear as of right now, you only attack, attack and attack.

Which is the only reason why they are played at all, mostly by people who are too dense or lazy to play TRUE ships with their complicated mechanics, limitations and vulnerabilities, not to mention tactics. Don't expect WG to embarass their favourite customers.

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,783 posts
7,438 battles
1 minute ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

TRUE ships with their complicated mechanics, limitations and vulnerabilities

Aaaahahaha! You do realize that there is nothing complicated in the whole game whatsoever? The game is an overly simplistic and slow shooter - nothing else (save from the nice 3d Art!)

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
687 posts
14 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Aaaahahaha! You do realize that there is nothing complicated in the whole game whatsoever? The game is an overly simplistic and slow shooter - nothing else (save from the nice 3d Art!)

So you are playing a DD without paying attention to positioning, concealment, radar ranges, air threats, cover, caps etc.? In contrast to a CV doing nothing of all this, and just flying planes merrily all over the place unfazed?

 

The fact that your PR is "very good" in CV, and merely "average" in DD and CA/CL does not make you think about the possible reason for this?

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
743 posts
15,100 battles
23 minutes ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

So you are playing a DD without paying attention to positioning, concealment, radar ranges, air threats, cover, caps etc.? In contrast to a CV doing nothing of all this, and just flying planes merrily all over the place unfazed?

 

The fact that your PR is "very good" in CV, and merely "average" in DD and CA/CL does not make you think about the possible reason for this?

oh man i love people with hidden profiles bashing stats of others. " Does not make you think a possible reason for this" fella?

 

So you are saying that when your don't have similar PR across all classes in this game, you are not entitled to voice your opinion? I am afraid these forums will be ghost town in such case.

PR works the same for each class, if you are unicum, that means you play that class better than 99% of other players. If CVs are so easy and braindead to play for all, shouldn't then everyone have highest "average" PR?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
687 posts
14 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

oh man i love people with hidden profiles bashing stats of others.

Statings relevant facts is bashing? Damn, you need to see a therapist.

Quote

So you are saying that when your don't have similar PR across all classes in this game, you are not entitled to voice your opinion?

Read again, try to comprehend the immensely complicated sentence I wrote, then come back. All I hinted at is that the fact that if a player is performing best in the class which is the least complicated to play (like you, too, duly noted), this fact may be partially responsible for his opinion that the entire game is not very complicated.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
743 posts
15,100 battles
1 minute ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

Statings relevant facts is bashing? Damn, you need to see a therapist.

Read again, try to comprehend the immensely complicated sentence I wrote, then come back. All I hinted at is that the fact that if a player is performing best in the class which is the least complicated to play, this fact may be partially responsible for his opinion that the entire game is not very complicated.

PR works WITHIN a class. If CVs had average of 300k dmg, and i was was doing 250k, i would still be BAD. Would it make the class weak? No, they would still be OP as [edited]even in my hands. PR says nothing about strength of the class, but says a lot about strength of a ship within a class (and player skill ofc)

 

I hope this was not that immensely complicated sentence. I would give you more relevant examples based on your own stats/PR, but for some reason i can't?  I know you are good player and you just wanna "state facts" of other ppl stats, why else you would hide own.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
687 posts
10 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

PR works WITHIN a class.

A class with no complicated mechanics to consider, attracting players who do not like or cannot master complicated mechanics, so even average players with a vague understanding of game mechanics can excel there.

 

Quote

I hope this was not that immensely complicated sentence.

Was it for you?

 

Quote

I would give you more relevant examples based on your own stats/PR, but for some reason i can't? 

Weird, I wonder what the reason for your impotence might be.

 

Quote

I know you are good player

My stats appear to confirm this.

 

Quote

why else you would hide own.

Privacy? Do you post your nudes online?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAO]
Players
1,808 posts
8,813 battles
1 ora fa, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS ha scritto:

he fact that your PR is "very good" in CV,

speaking of my midway, i am not^^

Because My Pr Is ReallY HiGh!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
743 posts
15,100 battles
Just now, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

A class with no complicated mechanics to consider, attracting players who do not like or cannot master complicated mechanics, so even average players with a vague understanding of game mechanics can excel there.

 

Was it for you?

 

Weird, I wonder what the reason for your impotence might be.

 

My stats appear to confirm this.

 

Privacy? Do you post your nudes online?

alright dude, seems like you have much bigger issues than WoWs. If stats in a game are like nude pics for you, but you like checking and commenting other ppl ones, you are exactly the type of a guy a wont be wasting my time with.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,783 posts
7,438 battles
16 minutes ago, CaptainObese said:

Since the implementation of the rework of the CV class in WOWS there has been a firm believe withing the WOWS community that the CV class is unbalanced.

Nope that is not the case. Some people think that.

 

As this is a long wall of text I hope I got your suggestions right:

 

1) individual weapon stats - specifically high tier AP bombs?

 

2) spotting delay from air?

 

3) buff fighters so they can prevent enemy strikes?

 

 

Well... hard to argue about 1) AP bombs were never a great idea. They were ridiculous during RTS times and are still annoying today - still some RTS legacy. But hey - no we also got AP rockets :Smile_sceptic:

For 2) there has been a lot of discussion and multiple suggestions but so far WG has only done some strange trials. I would expect that this would change some when in the future but currently it seems like WG hasn’t found a good way. Some of the suggestions were not even bad 

3) the current consumable fighter is garbage. But sure if buffing them would improve anything. Better have player controlled fighters 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,783 posts
7,438 battles
1 hour ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

So you are playing a DD without paying attention to positioning, concealment, radar ranges, air threats, cover, caps etc.? In contrast to a CV doing nothing of all this, and just flying planes merrily all over the place unfazed?

 

The fact that your PR is "very good" in CV, and merely "average" in DD and CA/CL does not make you think about the possible reason for this?

The problem is not the PR - the problem is that nothing in WOWS is even remotely complicated :Smile_teethhappy:

 

And no - watching 2 radar ships and having a few concealment values in mind and position a little bit is not complicated by any means. 
 

You are talking about risks and potential threads - nothing to do with complicated. 
 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
743 posts
15,100 battles
19 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Nope that is not the case. Some people think that.

 

As this is a long wall of text I hope I got your suggestions right:

 

1) individual weapon stats - specifically high tier AP bombs?

 

2) spotting delay from air?

 

3) buff fighters so they can prevent enemy strikes?

 

 

Well... hard to argue about 1) AP bombs were never a great idea. They were ridiculous during RTS times and are still annoying today - still some RTS legacy. But hey - no we also got AP rockets :Smile_sceptic:

For 2) there has been a lot of discussion and multiple suggestions but so far WG has only done some strange trials. I would expect that this would change some when in the future but currently it seems like WG hasn’t found a good way. Some of the suggestions were not even bad 

3) the current consumable fighter is garbage. But sure if buffing them would improve anything. Better have player controlled fighters 

 

AP bombs were WGs answer to off-load DD pressure onto other classes.

you need to understand that any anti-CV buffs or CV nerfs will directly hinder their progression (EXP/creds/dmg etc). T10 CVs for example sit now somewhere between BBs and CA levels, something like Goliath that is shitty ship can blow all T10 CV out of the water in most areas including the EXP gains.

DDs can pull 50k dmg game and still take 2k base exp. I don't mind if my Midway doing 50k dmg per game, if i can earn similar rewards doing so. Ultimately, nothing else matters, just how much EXP/FXP/EliteEXP or credits you grinded to progress 

 

Try to do T10 ranked with CVs. It is masochism. In every single ship, if i do well i can be top 3, in CVs all others in my own team must be crap and me do exceptionally well to be top 3. usually in a loss

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NED]
Players
14 posts
6,614 battles
15 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Nope that is not the case. Some people think that.

 

As this is a long wall of text I hope I got your suggestions right:

 

1) individual weapon stats - specifically high tier AP bombs?

 

2) spotting delay from air?

 

3) buff fighters so they can prevent enemy strikes?

 

 

Well... hard to argue about 1) AP bombs were never a great idea. They were ridiculous during RTS times and are still annoying today - still some RTS legacy. But hey - no we also got AP rockets :Smile_sceptic:

For 2) there has been a lot of discussion and multiple suggestions but so far WG has only done some strange trials. I would expect that this would change some when in the future but currently it seems like WG hasn’t found a good way. Some of the suggestions were not even bad 

3) the current consumable fighter is garbage. But sure if buffing them would improve anything. Better have player controlled fighters 

 

To clearify my opening statement: there seems to be a general concensus among the community that the CV class is nowhere near where it should be and some players might say overpowered ;)

you almost got all my suggestions right exept the first one.

1) make sure AP bombs cannot deal citadel dmg because citadel damage is near unhealable. Idc that the deal massive damage, i care that ships are unable to recover from it.

I think we can all agree with your 1) statement

2) do you have any examples, maybe a forum post I can read? I am curious

3) That is my whole point right there. However player controlled fighters would increase the skill gap too much (the point of the enitre rework was to make the skill gap smaller) thus, IMO a fighter consumable that actually works would help everyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NED]
Players
14 posts
6,614 battles
15 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

AP bombs were WGs answer to off-load DD pressure onto other classes.

you need to understand that any anti-CV buffs or CV nerfs will directly hinder their progression (EXP/creds/dmg etc). T10 CVs for example sit now somewhere between BBs and CA levels, something like Goliath that is shitty ship can blow all T10 CV out of the water in most areas including the EXP gains.

DDs can pull 50k dmg game and still take 2k base exp. I don't mind if my Midway doing 50k dmg per game, if i can earn similar rewards doing so. Ultimately, nothing else matters, just how much EXP/FXP/EliteEXP or credits you grinded to progress 

 

Try to do T10 ranked with CVs. It is masochism. In every single ship, if i do well i can be top 3, in CVs all others in my own team must be crap and me do exceptionally well to be top 3. usually in a loss

You are talking about results rather then in-game interaction, which is fine aslong as you keep in mind that CV it is harder to earn Base-XP in a CV because they actiually have a different BXP calculation then a DD for example. You have to do more damage in a CV to get the same BXP as a DD. This suggests that a CV is more of a 'Damage dealer' rather then anything else and that annoys me. I dont want the CV to be wapon of massdistruction, i want it to be a tool that helps the team and provides depth to the game.

 

However, fair point. In order to counter the hinder of their progression CV's should be nerfed but then they should also get the normal Base-XP calculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
486 posts
26,167 battles

I wonder how long its gonna take for this thread to get locked

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,615 posts
35 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

DDs can pull 50k dmg game and still take 2k base exp.

True just did a sliver under 2500 base XP in Jervis with some 50k damage but 3 caps and a T9 match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,783 posts
7,438 battles
30 minutes ago, CaptainObese said:

 

2) do you have any examples, maybe a forum post I can read? I am curious

 

1) one was to give a “transmit recon” button with 3-5 charges to each squadron. Basically like a radar function - provide spotting for a defined while for the team around the squadron (eg. 20-30 Secs or so)

 

2) another one was making spotting less accurate, i.e. only display an “X” for distant targets, a class symbol at medium ranges and the true ship only at short distance - and only make it lock-on-able for the team in the close range mode 

 

3) replace rocket fighters with manually controlled Scout planes. In essence strike planes would have bad spotting and Scout planes very good spotting. Therefore the CV would have to make a choice between spotting and striking 

 

That were the ones I remember which at least were not completely ridiculous and in my opinion worth a quick prototype

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,147 posts
16,419 battles

Here's what I'd like to see happen with CV fighters:

 

index.jpg.b0f0afb223732307231093001f655f8d.jpg

 

Yes, let players control them directly. This would make CV play less one-dimensional in that it would give the CV player something else to do other than just drop surface ships all game. Even the old strafing mechanic could see a comeback, this time from a third person perspective. This would definitely improve the interaction between the CV and their own team, as well as between opposing CV's. Now, they can still work like the fighter consumable in that you call them while controlling another squadron of rocket, dive bomber, or torpedo planes, and you get temporary control of them for a fixed amount of time / until the timer runs out / you switch back to the original squadron with the F key. Maybe? I'm not going to sit here and claim that it would surely work, but I think it might be interesting and improve things if done well - would definitely need to be tested extensively before committing to such a change.

 

However, it would make CV play more complex, which is exactly the opposite direction from what WG has been doing with them since the rework was first introduced. And since the last changes they did to the fighter consumable was to make it literally worthless for anything other than spotting, something tells me that a) using fighters mostly for spotting is exactly what WG had in mind, and b) making fighters a more useful and actually playable tool is the last thing on WG's mind.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,193 posts
20,211 battles

I have to give OP credit for his effort, I certainly admire the desire to try and find a better iteration of how CVs interact with each other as well surface ships. 

 

Sadly I fear the ideas put forward or refined through the ongoing discussion will be ignored by WG who appear utterly deaf to any suggestions. To that end I doubt I can offer any input, but credit where it's due I like the positivity and desire for balance displayed by the OP. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,783 posts
7,438 battles
Just now, lovelacebeer said:

I have to give OP credit for his effort, I certainly admire the desire to try and find a better iteration of how CVs interact with each other as well surface ships. 

 

Sadly I fear the ideas put forward or refined through the ongoing discussion will be ignored by WG who appear utterly deaf to any suggestions. To that end I doubt I can offer any input, but credit where it's due I like the positivity and desire for balance displayed by the OP. 

Agree - a positive discussion is the way to go. I am not entirely convinced that WG doesn’t listen to feedback. It’s obvious that they ignore spamming of individuals.

 

But such a discussion is a good one 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,367 posts
4,202 battles
2 hours ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

 (like you, too, duly noted)

Hmm ... I would say he has perfectly fine stats in DDs as well and that is the most demanding class to play by your own words ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,768 posts
21,323 battles
3 hours ago, CaptainObese said:

If the fighter consumable would be buffed, in a way that it immediately engages with enemy squadrons, the CV has an option to play defensive again instead of constantly dishing out damage by attacking the enemy team.

 

You'd just have two plane squadrons annihilate each other for nothing if they happen to meet on the map somewhere randomly.

The general issue with the fighter consumable is that you need to be in the area to actually cover your teammates. This is naturally untenable as you're losing out on striking time and therefore fall behind in the damage race that is CV play even if you happen to catch an enemy squad with said fighters which is likewise a dodgy prospect to say the least. This will even be the case with manually controlled fighters. Playing to react rather than to act simply isn't a game winning recipe.

 

Unless WG allows us to control fighters at the same time as bombers, any idea to fix them is unlikely to solve anything.

In fact it would actually be a better idea to just remove CV fighters entirely to curtail their spotting potential.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NED]
Players
14 posts
6,614 battles
56 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

You'd just have two plane squadrons annihilate each other for nothing if they happen to meet on the map somewhere randomly.

 

Playing to react rather than to act simply isn't a game winning recipe.

 

In fact it would actually be a better idea to just remove CV fighters entirely to curtail their spotting potential.

1) I do not see the problem with the possibility of two CV's canceling each other out, key word being possibility. If a cv decides to give up a squadron in exchange for a squadron of the enemy CV, that is his call to make. It would be a simple choise between dealing damage to the enemy or mitigating damage dealt to your own team.

 

2) If your team takes 2/3 caps, playing defensive is a game winning recipe.

 

3) with the current itteration of the fighter consumable, i absolutely agree with this, I think it would make the games closer thus more exciting and fun to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×