What I'd change to the game if it was up to me...

[Figment]

8 minutes ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

I'm going to read this after work and give you a detailed response. What I can see at a glance however is that your system is far too complicated for the average player.

I could make a similarly long list for today's situation. It's not too complicated though since much of it will be passive or intuitive, or occur in odds calculations by the game.

 

A lot of these would be inherent in the tools through player interfaces (like how one uses the size of reticules, cycles through torpedo spread lead indicators etc.) and won't be something players will have to actively think about as they'll learn to integrate it naturally.

Some of it will be simple map interactions and prompted.

8 minutes ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

The amount of things one would need to account for while playing will make dedicated players who understand this system fully far more powerful than your average CV player reintroducing once again (what is already here tbh) a massive skillgap between CV players and once again would tilt the scales in favor for the team with the better CV player. It introduces more problems than there currently are just by being so overly complicated.

Better players contributing to winning more matches, yeah... That's not exactly a problem, is it?

 

Thing is, the relative power compared to other players than the enemy CV will be reduced, so the impact will be less overall and it will allow mitigation by other players far more than today, since today's reach of the CV player is greater and therefore more influential for the entire battle, not just the local flank.

 

Taking together with the remainder of changes, the influence of DDs, brawling BBs and (AA) cruisers in particular will increase, that of sitting back BBs and CVs decrease and that of subs become more situational.

8 minutes ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

It doesn't help that you want to force players to get better at the game. This never works. There isn't a single game out there who produced a majority playerbase which is highly skilled.

I'm not out to produce better quality players per say. Though I am out to naturally stimulate and encourage teamwork and enhance the strength of teamplayers, as well as stimulating initiative, which the current system punishes.

 

As a consequence, player behaviour will shift naturally, because it's just going to be more rewarding and some things will simply not be possible or sustainable.

 

For instance, if you can't rely on other people's scouting as much, you'll have no choice but to move in closer as a BB. That automatically makes these players "better", because they'll be better positioned to provide close support to others.

Getting players to share information is a good thing. It automatically makes a team better and starts creating bonds between people. Getting people to communicate instead of doing all the communication for them will strengthen the ties a player has to other players and indirectly to the game.

 

I'd also like there to be some proper map tools to inform others that aren't directly related to language though (and limited in spam ability). The current grid click spam for instance is not properly designed for positive player interaction.

8 minutes ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

All your suggestions will achieve is an even smaller CV player population of very good players which will slowly be declining because of the non rewarding playstyle and inconsistent luck based AA

Inconsistent it is not. Less predictable outcomes can occur, yes, but over time and thus most the time, preset odds will give somewhat consistent results, it's however not as much of a given either way as it used to be.

 

As a player on either end, you'll be able to influence the odds by controlling approach vectors and timing. Units will have better or worse mitigation odds, but it'll never be such that you will have completely unreliable results. 

 

I'd hope to see some of that in A2A as well, like engagement timing resulting in a dogfight with one side getting the drop on enemy fighters giving a few extra damage checks before retailiation for instance. This is also dependent on how dog fights are scripted in general and what the AI sets as priorities (is a fighter engaging enemy bombers and intercepted, do they continue following bombers or engage the fighters? etc). In fact, I wouldn't mind some player choices here  as well by setting A2A fighter stances to defensive, aggressive, evasive or guarding.

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

I'm going to read this after work and give you a detailed response. What I can see at a glance however is that your system is far too complicated for the average player. The amount of things one would need to account for while playing will make dedicated players who understand this system fully far more powerful than your average CV player reintroducing once again (what is already here tbh) a massive skillgap between CV players and once again would tilt the scales in favor for the team with the better CV player. It introduces more problems than there currently are just by being so overly complicated.

So, your solution is making AA nearly wortless, making first drop guaranteed, making CV gameplay as easy as possible, as forgiving as possible. great.    

1 hour ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

 

It doesn't help that you want to force players to get better at the game.

it goes for every single class in this game. In DDs esp. you gotta get better to be able to do something cause there are more counters to DDs in this game than to other classes combined. 

1 hour ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

This never works. There isn't a single game out there who produced a majority playerbase which is highly skilled.

again, goes for every class.

1 hour ago, Yuu5Eleven said:

All your suggestions will achieve is an even smaller CV player population of very good players which will slowly be declining because of the non rewarding playstyle and inconsistent luck based AA

thats why WG is never going to make any changes which would possibly mean a nerf to CVs since their only balancing criteria is ship/class popularity, which has been proved by WG itself while answering the questions during CC meeting back then.