CVs in every game

[Kaleston]

Hi all,

 

as we all know, there are less people playing CVs than ever. What do you think about 1 CV slot being mandatory in every game?

My idea would be for MM to fill the slot with bots (ideally with some random names, so they are not easily spotted as bots) after some period waiting in queue.

I think this could make people more cooperative against CVs (as they would be in every game) and probably also more used to CV mechanic and how to counter it.

 

I'm also kind of sad that my AA cruiser with AA setup is worthless most games....

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

bots in random , not gona happen sorry

[Domin1c]

Hi all,

 

as we all know, there are less people playing CVs than ever. What do you think about 1 CV slot being mandatory in every game?

My idea would be for MM to fill the slot with bots (ideally with some random names, so they are not easily spotted as bots) after some period waiting in queue.

I think this could make people more cooperative against CVs (as they would be in every game) and probably also more used to CV mechanic and how to counter it.

 

I'm also kind of sad that my AA cruiser with AA setup is worthless most games....

 

 

Remember back when CV's weren't completely trash due to the AA of BB's not being completely out of control? There were plenty of carriers back then, because the class wasn't nerfed to all hell. The continuous AA buffs to BB's have almost killed the class, and now you see the results. There were so many carriers that DD's whined and whined because they just got permaspotted and became useless.

 

You advice putting disguised bots in with normal people in ranked battles. You should know that people HATE playing with bots and there is a whole report system in place for getting rid of bots in games. This is the most bassackwards thing I've seen in a long time. Treat the problem not the symptoms. 

[Kenjiro_]

I want to play CVs. I'm fascinated with them since I was a boy. The problem is I suck in them. I believe they require the highest amount of skill among all classes. Especially with high tier IJN CVs with 6-8 air wings.

 

As a CV, you're expected to spot, provide air cover, torp/bomb enemy ships, protect your own ship from enemy, deal with enemy CV. It makes 8 air wings + ship, 9 assets to manage simultanously while Having a great amount of map awareness and APM.

 

I simply can't do it. But if they make it so simple that guys like me can do it, CVs become owerpowered as hell in good hands. People start whining and CVs are nerfed underground.

 

Respect to all capable CV captains out there. Nevermind the whiners, you're doing something most people cannot...

[eliastion]

No, no, NO.

If each team got their bot it wouldn't be THAT bad (but really, its a PvP, what's the use of bots? People will quickly pick up on patterns and abuse them being bots rather than considering them a legitimate threat). But if it ever happened that there would be a player against a bot carrir!? BY DESIGN!?

 

No, sorry, just scrap this project. Buff CVs so they are more enjoyable to play and the problem of lack of CVs will sort itself out. That's the only way to do it.

The main problem with CVs and their balancing is that they SEEM powerful when you're on the receiving end. A decent drop can take away half of BBs hp without really giving him the chance to retaliate. The problem is that a single drop is a big time and finite resource (planes) investment on CV's part - all for an effect that for a BB would require a single good salvo into an enemy that made the mistake of showing his broadside.

But it doesn't look that way when you are getting hit. I know. I've been hit (and sunk) by carriers, I know how strong they seem...

And then you get one and your planes prove to be made of paper, your damage hardly impressive (especially since a significant chunk of your attack wave can be taken down before actually dropping anything)... and then there are cruisers with long range AA and anti-ari consumables that make your planes die (even more) like flies while being unable to deliver anything resembling a successful attack due to huge spreads of torps/bombs.

[KptStrzyga]

 

I'm also kind of sad that my AA cruiser with AA setup is worthless most games....

Play in division with CV.

[allufewig]

Play in division with CV.

 

Yep. Or spec anti-DD.

 

@CA-players: Adapt, because you cant successfully demand WG to develop the game around your personal tastes of planeshooting.

 

 

 

[RamirezKurita]

 

 

Remember back when CV's weren't completely trash due to the AA of BB's not being completely out of control? There were plenty of carriers back then, because the class wasn't nerfed to all hell. The continuous AA buffs to BB's have almost killed the class, and now you see the results. There were so many carriers that DD's whined and whined because they just got permaspotted and became useless.

 

You advice putting disguised bots in with normal people in ranked battles. You should know that people HATE playing with bots and there is a whole report system in place for getting rid of bots in games. This is the most bassackwards thing I've seen in a long time. Treat the problem not the symptoms. 

 

And there were even more carriers before the buffs to long range AA and the reworking of USN decks, and even more carriers than that before the carrier mirroring. Basically every single change with regards to AA and carriers so I started playing at the beginning of OBT have reduced the number of carriers in the game.

[eliastion]

 

And there were even more carriers before the buffs to long range AA and the reworking of USN decks, and even more carriers than that before the carrier mirroring. Basically every single change with regards to AA and carriers so I started playing at the beginning of OBT have reduced the number of carriers in the game.

 

Carrier mirroring was a very needed addition though. Especially CV players wanted it. I doubt that this particular change affected CV enjoyability negatively...

[VC381]

People above have got it right I think, you need to treat the symptom (bad carrier balance) and then you will see CVs in more games. Forcing numbers won't work.

 

Part of the issue is playing CV is like playing a different game to all other classes so it's hard to get players to like it. And as was said CVs can be very powerful so even if "balanced" you can have a few very good players that can completely dominate a game (as CVs did IRL) but it would still be too hard for a lot of other players so you won't see them that often.

 

Basically they need to be redesigned in a way that makes them fun and popular without just making them stronger... and that's not easy!

[Vulgarny]

THey need to remake UI for CV. Now its clustertuk and for me is tiresome and pissing me off.

[RamirezKurita]

 

Carrier mirroring was a very needed addition though. Especially CV players wanted it. I doubt that this particular change affected CV enjoyability negatively...

 

It's just anecdotal evidence, but I personally noticed that the number of carriers plummeted when they introduced mirroring. At least in the middle tiers anyway, I can't vouch for the upper tiers as I hadn't got there by that point. Carrier mirroring was necessary at the time because ship based AA was so very terrible that, outside a select few ships, surface ships couldn't defend themselves from aircraft; now, however, ship based AA is several times better than it used to be and ships are much more able to defend themselves from enemy carriers, so it is far less necessary now.

 

Forced mirroring and limiting numbers (officially, carriers are limited to two per team due to performance issues on potato computers though) is also an incredibly lazy way of balancing things, it is literally just the balance team flipping the table, giving up and declaring something unbalanceable. They should treat the causes, not the symptoms. It's similar to the arguments about limiting destroyers in games, it would just be the balance team surrendering to the problem rather than solving it, as having too many destroyers wouldn't be a problem if other classes had solutions to said problem.

 

Part of the issue is playing CV is like playing a different game to all other classes so it's hard to get players to like it.

 

A little thing on that note that I have suggested before would be to implement a T4 premium carrier that is made freely available through promo codes that are given away via advertising and in magazines. Part of the problem is that people begin playing with surface ships, and if they enjoy them they will eventually unlock carriers which are quite different, while RTS fans who might enjoy carrier gameplay get put off having to grind through a few tiers of surface ships before even getting to try carrier gameplay. A large giveaway for a T4 carrier would let players who are new to the game try carrier gameplay, and if they enjoy it they will be more willing to grind up to the regular tech tree carriers.

 

Having more variety in carriers might also help. Saipan helps with this, but it is an expensive premium. Unfortunately, trying to introduce significant variety in carriers before things are even remotely balanced with just the current two lines would just complicate things further. Get the basics down then worry about diversifying content.

 

THey need to remake UI for CV. Now its clustertuk and for me is tiresome and pissing me off.

 

  Agreed entirely, the carrier interface is pretty bad and a discussion with all of its flaws and potential solutions could probably fill an entire subforum.

[Capra76]

Forced mirroring and limiting numbers (officially, carriers are limited to two per team due to performance issues on potato computers though) is also an incredibly lazy way of balancing things, it is literally just the balance team flipping the table, giving up and declaring something unbalanceable. They should treat the causes, not the symptoms. 

 

Speaking as an outside observer, it strikes me that the fundamental problem is the rate at which AA and CV power progresses through the tiers, meaning that the outcome of any battle (assuming similar skill levels) depends almost entirely upon the respective tiers of the attacking/defending ships.

 

It seems perverse, but would the game work better if, except for more damaging bombs/torps,  T10 AA/CV were no more powerful than their T4 equivalent?

[anonym_yABmLAWoZ6QF]

I like the fact we don't have in every battle CV's. Just as I like the fact that we have sometimes CV's in the battle. But a big NO for CV's in EVERY battle.

[VC381]

The T4 CV give-away is a nice idea but ultimately doesn't change the facts that some people won't like the RTS style anyway, carriers have a much longer learning curve than other ship types and the micro-management required creates the possibility for huge difference in results depending on skill and practice (again much more than any other ship type). Early exposure doesn't fully solve the huge barriers to enjoying carriers.

 

I know the really good carrier players will cry about taking the skill out of the game but I think carriers need to be "normalised" a little so that their impact on the game doesn't vary so wildly. Then people are more likely to learn them and stick with them through the tiers.

[Fionia_DK]

Actually, I dont think CV drivers have anything to whine at. Look at the stats, CV is the most powerfull ship, as in RL.

 

But some drivers dont use them very well. The other day a CV dragged 3 squadrons over my Donskoi on he,s way to our CV. All 3  squads where shoot down. Do not fly over enemy ships, it will cost U. Learn your opponent strongpoints and weakness. Not only enemy CV.

 

Another thing. Why doesnt many CV's participate in the DD hunt? Light them up, throw a bomb or two on them. Give friendly cruisers a good target. When DD's a out, the CV's can rest a little easier. It is often DD's that kill CV's. So it is in own interest they get killed.

 

Sometimes I tell CV when I have hit an enemy hard with HE, but they dont react on it. When a BB is spammed with HE, he,s AA gets knocked off. Recently I took 25 AA guns off Nagato. It is half he's AA. CV's, look for for ships on fire. There is a good chance their AA is decimated and your loss of AC wont be so hard.

 

My 5 cent about CV driving.

 

 

Fionia

[General_Alexus]

Bad idea. Even against human Players sometimes you get a very one sided match if your CV is bad. If i would be matched against a Bot, it would be like an Autowin for my Team, it would be even worse as if the enemy Team has no CV and a normal ( good ) Player in any other Ship.

And i am not the best CV Player out there ( only somewhere in the Top 100 ) but against the usual (human) CV it is already quite easy to dominate. 

[WarburtonLee]

I would like to see lower AA on battleships, if there is going to be a point in playing an AA cruiser. I started the CV lines a while ago, but i dont even play them. Did quite well with the lowest tiers, but seeing what my Kutuzov for example does with enemy planes, im not even interessted in going higher. If there was only AA cruisers who had this sick AA, it would have been fine imo. But BBs with 100 AA rating makes AA cruiser kind of pointless?

[RamirezKurita]

I like the fact we don't have in every battle CV's. Just as I like the fact that we have sometimes CV's in the battle. But a big NO for CV's in EVERY battle.

 

While I don't agree with carriers in every battle, it would be nice to see them in most battles. Kind of like how you usually get destroyers or battleships in every battle, but once in a blue moon you will have a destroyerless game.

 

The T4 CV give-away is a nice idea but ultimately doesn't change the facts that some people won't like the RTS style anyway, carriers have a much longer learning curve than other ship types and the micro-management required creates the possibility for huge difference in results depending on skill and practice (again much more than any other ship type). Early exposure doesn't fully solve the huge barriers to enjoying carriers.

 

I know the really good carrier players will cry about taking the skill out of the game but I think carriers need to be "normalised" a little so that their impact on the game doesn't vary so wildly. Then people are more likely to learn them and stick with them through the tiers.

 

It wouldn't change the fact that many people don't like RTSes, but it would open up the game to those that do. It means that players that want to play a naval based RTS can try carrier gameplay without having to grind regular ships to even get to the aspect of the game they want to play. Not everyone needs to enjoy playing as carriers, just as not every carrier player needs to enjoy playing as regular surface ships. I'm pretty sure there's a large market out there of RTS players wanting a naval air strategy/MOBA game that WoWS could dip into, but at the moment carrier gameplay is hidden away behind 4 tiers of action gameplay.

 

For carrier gameplay overall, I say that more emphasis needs to be placed onto the strategic aspects of them, rather than all the changes that have turned them even more into an APMfest. It annoys me how most of the "difficult" things for carrier gameplay a bot could do far, far better than a human. APMfests tend to be very difficult to get into, but offer very little actual depth, they are very much the "hard to learn, easy to master" style of gameplay, which is the opposite of what most game designers try to achieve.

 

Sometimes I tell CV when I have hit an enemy hard with HE, but they dont react on it. When a BB is spammed with HE, he,s AA gets knocked off. Recently I took 25 AA guns off Nagato. It is half he's AA. CV's, look for for ships on fire. There is a good chance their AA is decimated and your loss of AC wont be so hard.

 

That's a point that is related to the poor interface which doesn't give you half of the information you need to make an informed decision. Even a simplistic display on the HUD to show the current state of enemy modules when mousing over a target would be a great help for both carriers and regular players. If the information was all there on the HUD as to how much AA a ship has lost then you wouldn't even need to tell carrier players the state of an enemy's AA, he could just check it himself and prioritise accordingly.

[BuccaneerBill]

I would like to see lower AA on battleships, if there is going to be a point in playing an AA cruiser. I started the CV lines a while ago, but i dont even play them. Did quite well with the lowest tiers, but seeing what my Kutuzov for example does with enemy planes, im not even interessted in going higher. If there was only AA cruisers who had this sick AA, it would have been fine imo. But BBs with 100 AA rating makes AA cruiser kind of pointless?

 

Not really, a Hakyruyu laughs at 100 BB AA rating. You also lose most of your mid range AA on a BB to HE, which is were alot of the DPS comes from. Only the defensive AA module on some cruisers is truly devastating. Thing is if you make BBs totally impotent against planes, then that requires cruisers to cover each one of them with 'teamwork' which just doesn't happen in random (plus boring for cruisers who maybe should also so go after DD and such). A BB can't follow cruisers because their too slow and do it really doesn't work. 

[WarburtonLee]

 

Not really, a Hakyruyu laughs at 100 BB AA rating. You also lose most of your mid range AA on a BB to HE, which is were alot of the DPS comes from. Only the defensive AA module on some cruisers is truly devastating. Thing is if you make BBs totally impotent against planes, then that requires cruisers to cover each one of them with 'teamwork' which just doesn't happen in random (plus boring for cruisers who maybe should also so go after DD and such). A BB can't follow cruisers because their too slow and do it really doesn't work. 

 

Well, strange if a Hakyruyu laughs at a BB with 100 AA rating, since the Kutuzov with 90 AA laughs at every CV in the game (with manual AA ofcourse) My record is around 50 planes from a tier X CV. You select plane at 10 km, start firing at 7,5 ish, deleted at 3-4 km.... And i frequently see battles where BBs shoot down a TON of planes

[VC381]

 

For carrier gameplay overall, I say that more emphasis needs to be placed onto the strategic aspects of them, rather than all the changes that have turned them even more into an APMfest. It annoys me how most of the "difficult" things for carrier gameplay a bot could do far, far better than a human. APMfests tend to be very difficult to get into, but offer very little actual depth, they are very much the "hard to learn, easy to master" style of gameplay, which is the opposite of what most game designers try to achieve.

 

Completely agree, the APMfest as you call it means a new player needs to practice for hours to not get clubbed by those who can and then has nothing else to stop him getting bored once he knows how to do it. And again it's the opposite of every other class, where it's fairly easy to learn what to shoot at and how to aim but takes longer to master the nuances of position and angling.

 

My rather controversial opinion on this is that manual drops should be removed entirely, and the skill/difficulty to be re-introduced through other management aspects that are more strategic.

[BuccaneerBill]

 

Well, strange if a Hakyruyu laughs at a BB with 100 AA rating, since the Kutuzov with 90 AA laughs at every CV in the game (with manual AA ofcourse) My record is around 50 planes from a tier X CV. You select plane at 10 km, start firing at 7,5 ish, deleted at 3-4 km.... And i frequently see battles where BBs shoot down a TON of planes

 

 

Defensive fire module recks with stuff like the Kutuzov with its long range AA. It's like 3 times the damage or something? This is not Included in AA rating and of course BBs don't have access to it. Plus Montana/Iowa can't dodge anything and you will still take a full broadside of torps\DBs.

[RamirezKurita]

 

Completely agree, the APMfest as you call it means a new player needs to practice for hours to not get clubbed by those who can and then has nothing else to stop him getting bored once he knows how to do it. And again it's the opposite of every other class, where it's fairly easy to learn what to shoot at and how to aim but takes longer to master the nuances of position and angling.

 

My rather controversial opinion on this is that manual drops should be removed entirely, and the skill/difficulty to be re-introduced through other management aspects that are more strategic.

 

I don't have a problem with manual drops on their own, the problem that I have is that automatic drops are simply terrible. Manual drops do give players some useful options that wouldn't be available if we were limited to automatic drops, such as launching torpedoes into smoke or down narrow waterways as area denial, and it would be a shame if those plays became impossible. If automatic drops could actually hit things with some degree of consistency then, suddenly the micro requirements for carriers would drop, carrier gameplay would become far more consistent while skilled players would still keep their fancy manual drops for when they want to do things like cross dropping, forcing enemies to turn to expose broadsides or flushing enemies out of smoke.

 

Manual drops are like increasing dispersion on a ships guns fivefold, but giving the players the option to control elevation on their guns manually if they want a "normal" dispersion. I'm pretty sure most players wouldn't be happy if the game required players to do that as they want to shoot things, not constantly reference ballistic tables and mash buttons on their calculator top hit anything.

[VC381]

 

I don't have a problem with manual drops on their own, the problem that I have is that automatic drops are simply terrible. Manual drops do give players some useful options that wouldn't be available if we were limited to automatic drops, such as launching torpedoes into smoke or down narrow waterways as area denial, and it would be a shame if those plays became impossible. If automatic drops could actually hit things with some degree of consistency then, suddenly the micro requirements for carriers would drop, carrier gameplay would become far more consistent while skilled players would still keep their fancy manual drops for when they want to do things like cross dropping, forcing enemies to turn to expose broadsides or flushing enemies out of smoke.

 

Manual drops are like increasing dispersion on a ships guns fivefold, but giving the players the option to control elevation on their guns manually if they want a "normal" dispersion. I'm pretty sure most players wouldn't be happy if the game required players to do that as they want to shoot things, not constantly reference ballistic tables and mash buttons on their calculator top hit anything.

 

Did you ever play NavyField (the first one)? That had click to shoot with awful dispersion, or manual control over train and elevation for good dispersion, it wasn't a very good system and I'm glad we don't have that (except we do on CVs, kind of). Again I agree. Without taking my extreme option, the way I see it is manual and auto drop should be options with different benefits. Manual can provide a bit more accuracy but come at the opportunity cost of micro-management. But auto drop should be accurate enough that it's worth using for the benefit of attacking quicker, getting faster turnaround, being able to concentrate on other things etc.