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

CV as support class

95 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
781 posts
4,327 battles

There were lots of good points in the original thread on the current CV meta, and how unbalanced it was. There were also some interesting concepts, including one from me, on possible directions for CV. However, the one I liked best was someone's concept on turning CVs into a support class; greatly lowered alpha damage potential, but better in everything else.

 

However, that would mean a completely new playstyle, even a complete overhaul on what is a CV in WoWs. Many mechanics will have to be changed, such as the normalizing of AA. New mechanics and systems will have to be designed, such as scoring for the CV, to balance it for surface gameplay, and allowing non-mirrored/tierlocked CV MM.

 

Thus I would like to invite discussion on how and what could a CV do if it is no longer focused on alpha damage as a class.

1. What new mechanics needs to be introduced.

2. What existing difficulties needs to be adapted to, or overcome.

3. How this could be historically sound.

 

Later on I will provide my own concepts on these points, similar to in the original thread as well, but better. But because I am not solely pre-occupied by this concept, and it is more demanding than the original "man-made spectacle" attempt (don't bother with reading it, it is already outdated), it will take some time. Please provide your own discussion for the time being. If there is any request or direct feedback please do not hesitate to notify me.

 

I specifically request insight into historical references.

Such as:

How many CV planes in total operated in one strike at a time. How many per CV. What is the composition between fighters/bombers/torpedo-bombers.

How long does it take for them to ascend to cruising altitude, and to descend to strike. Difference in strike protocols between DB and level-altitude bombers.

What is the strike percentage against different ship classes, historically. How successful were they for each ship class.

What is the historically accurate values for surface AA engagement ranges. 

What were the visibility ranges for plane-to-surface spotting, and surface-to-plane spotting, and plane-to-plane spotting. What were specific characteristics in such interactions.

How does surface-based strike planes factor into all this.

and etc.

 

Cheers and thanks.

 

Edit: If you are new to this thread I have already concluded it here.

 

Further Edit: The conclusion above on a new CV playstyle works best if envisioned with addition to ideas presented in this thread:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,036 posts
2,939 battles
6 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

How many per CV. What is the composition between fighters/bombers/torpedo-bombers.

http://www.navypedia.org/

 

6 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

What is the historically accurate values for surface AA engagement ranges. 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php

 

 

Are you expecting a post with informations ? Cause several nations used CVs through the coure of history, and all had specific usage, and design - the numbers, besides, also vary depending on the year, specifically during the war. Besides that, aircrafts models are even more numerous than carriers by FAR and each had specific technical values and usage, and each was specific to a certain, small era.
You can't go and ask ALL THE DATA for EVERY SHIP of EVERY NATION during ALL THE EXISTENCE OF CARRIERS. I'm pretty sure we'd blow the authorized length of a post. Probably twice.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,962 posts
13,451 battles

CVs are already a support class. Just because the majority of the playerbase is braindead, making CVs more influential beyond their inherent design, doesn't make it any less true.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
781 posts
4,327 battles
4 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

http://www.navypedia.org/

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php

Are you expecting a post with informations ? Cause several nations used CVs through the coure of history, and all had specific usage, and design - the numbers, besides, also vary depending on the year, specifically during the war. Besides that, aircrafts models are even more numerous than carriers by FAR and each had specific technical values and usage, and each was specific to a certain, small era.
You can't go and ask ALL THE DATA for EVERY SHIP of EVERY NATION during ALL THE EXISTENCE OF CARRIERS. I'm pretty sure we'd blow the authorized length of a post. Probably twice.

Err,  a nice and detailed essay on armoured versus unarmoured flight decks but which is almost impossible to represent in the primitive system of WoWs. An essay on ballistics tests on Shinano armour, barely helpful. That is the problem with WG games. They can model armour models and artilley ballistics (simulated for "balance") for all they care, but the game balance system is so primitive it amounts to little more than "smother a ship from every direction with shells until it sinks, also HE is op just spam HE". Paired with dire AA and vision mechanics etc. it's a struggle to even represent certain elements in WoWs at all, much less do it justifiably to its realistic counterpart. All I know is "certain BB shells when hit will do exactly 4036 damage per shell every time as long as they don't bounce". Very detailed. Very strategic with tactical depth. Very Krupp system. Wow. 

 

So any insight would help, but I've had trouble finding those. Loads of essays on technical issues such as VT fuzes, lots on analyzing battles, but few with chronological accounts on naval aviation which could be useful in game design. Some memoirs from aces, but again, tidbits only and hard to represent in WoWs.

This one here

http://www.chuckhawks.com/index3.naval_military_history.htm

Has lots of plane examples but little operational info.

 

Hard to convince WG to make any changes, I mean they still work with that purposefully dumb aiming system with artificial RNG to cause artificial distress in players. How the fk would ideas such as changing CVs to support class, make plane formations actually matter, normalizing AA mechanics, creating an "aerial sphere" and on even be persuaded, when they think an eraser-fighter-strafe mechanic = skill?

Here's my simplified and incomplete concept in a nutshell:
1. Planes scored by tierpoints. Loss of planes - loss of corresponding amounts of tierpoints
2. Planes travel and fight in large formation in aerial sphere, similar to Total War series if army formations were perma-active. 
3. Surviving planes or non-engaged planes can drop down to surface sphere from below the corresponding aerial area to cause support-like status on multiple targets and on the area, but less focused on precision nuking alpha damage.

That is an extremely simplified version. Actual version incurs questions like "larger carriers - larger single force, but smaller carriers can strike more precisely". How to balance, in fact how would the actual mechanics of large-group engagements be calculated. Also, CV MM will no longer be mirrored nor even tier/number-locked, due to normalization of mechanics and this "single-strike force only", assuming it can be balanced. Yes, separate targeting and sending off squads is possible but the way it works is still "one large aerial group". This "large group in-formation, with individual squads, and simulated micro-units based off a tierpoint system" is detailed more in depth in one of my "tierpoints if applied to TW:A" posts too long to read. It may be enhanced by ideas from the original notes such as camera-angle based control, auto-verified targets and etc. lots of concepts. It was further modified by ideas in an unfinished and unwritten version of "tierpoints if applied to WoT", where most of the scoring was derived from. Also questions such as how to balance it for both random and competitive play. How exactly would the "descend to surface sphere" work out, how would AA mechanics interact in each phase and distance, would it be necessary to persuade WG to add depth to AA, should it be like the artillery system, should barrage mechanics vary by ship class (due to both balance issues such as DD versus BB survival from air, how that would happen under new mechanics, and of course also how historically ships operated AA), how would re-arming mechanics work in "one-large strike force", how would scouts and scout fighters interact with aerial sphere, is friendly-AA an issue, should we design mechanics to be compatible to future designs such as night battle, how would the actual CV itself sail in the current game map, but in general, lots and lots and LOTS of questions and possibilities on every possible conceivable detail all spiraling out of control. And these are just the game-balance questions.

I tell you, I had about 7 versions of notes with the longest one being about 60k words, on every fking conceivable aspect and all the frickin info I ever managed to come upon on, and has expansive design notes on how something might need to change because something else changed to adhere to an overall "feel" or "ideology" in the design. Actual simulating notes for instance different shell mechanics, barrage types of varying distance/height/density and counter protocols, and simulating plane dodging maneuvers respectively (based on historical training pamphlets, helpfully illustrated, I found online), further countermeasures (vs surface) including chaff, flares, smoke, even from planes, on and on, and how potential damage caused (not even the damage itself) could be calculated depending on sighting, angle, target maneuverability versus aggressor pursuit and "lock-on" ability versus possible "escape routes and space to maneuver" etc. (Unlike the WG model which is as simple as "AA damage versus plane HP = chance to be shot down" FK. Gonna go drown myself now.)

 

No, I do not even come close to knowing ALL THE DATA for EVERY SHIP for EVERY and etc. but I caught a true glimpse of that madness and it is what I have dealt with already. Reading very long journals on plane types and comparative performance, watching youtube videos of veterans showing us the cockpits and how bailing out works to different effectiveness, weapon tests, 3D re-enacting of raids, theoretical plane vs plane encounters... I had a fking visuals section detailing how water glimmer differed under different weather conditions, how different water looked depending on the ocean currents and surrounding geography, even how waves from explosions versus ship wake versus maneuvering and how they overlapped and on and on, how to add dark outlining and artificial shadows to make ships look picturesque in rendering, and that isn't even just all the water part (I also had for explosions, smoke from funnels, steam, lights, landmass, clouds, weather and plenty more, separate sound and camera (photography) sections) etc. you have no fking idea (I mean to give WG credit they do find ways to "simulate rendering of stretch-to-horizon water" but with the ship wakes we get in-game? just fk it?.) I mean who the fk would read about how well different base building types (wood, concrete, etc.) survive air raids? How prototype anti-air missiles performed? Radio protocols including CV positioning? How to differ between friend-vs-foe air contacts? (Also to give WG credit we do have an in-game base ... er sort of.) It's just ... shallow. Who the fk would go on and read about the "ideology that fueled kamikaze pilots". I mean, just fk. I give up. Can't do sht for this game. (But still, yes, I still do want all the data for every ship for every nation, and much more than that. And yes. I can go and fking ask for that but I am not. I'm just asking for some simple insight that will help me translate the actions of a CV to be more "support" oriented. I'm not asking you to give me insight on what the individual pilot sees, feels, reacts, will feel about reacting in that way, checks his knowledge, feels from the result doing something, how that reverse translates into that "pursuit" damage model, and much more, while doing it, and how that can be further be translated and encoded in theoretical game systems and mechanics and how the player will feel from seeing those and think and react accordingly and how the mechanics should be represented and if they are implemented artistically and intuitively and respectfully and accurately and balanced and compatible-to-future and design counter-arguments and then balance every other mechanic to be cohesive with it and much much more GOD I'll just stop. Err, also, surface AA data is also nice, besides naval aviation data. Should be easier to find articles on the weaknesses of specific AA mounts (cough IJN cough). Try those.) 

 

I'm sorry I'm just really not in the mood to go into niceties today. I haven't had the mood to check or add to the notes in over a year. Actually, I haven't even bothered to open the folder containing it or even read it. (There were lots of pictures and pdf's and stuff in the folder too.) Every time I reference the notes in recent occasion is from memory. It's a miracle I haven't just deleted it all and given up on WoWs. If you can't find the articles of the type I desire online just find some old threads in this forum where people posted lots of historical references and stuff and brought up lots of good points. (Those people have mostly given up on WoWs.) I'll probably do it myself when I'm feeling less depressed on WoWs and also less lazy. Idk. You don't have to find anything at all. I dunno what I'm asking for in the end anyways. Just abandon thread. Thanks anyways, though there wasn't too much on naval aviation in the two links provided. Still, maybe someday I'll feel like giving enough of a fk to explain how a concept of camera-angle based control works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,036 posts
2,939 battles
30 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Err,  a nice and detailed essay on armoured versus unarmoured flight decks but which is almost impossible to represent in the primitive system of WoWs. An essay on ballistics tests on Shinano armour, barely helpful. That is the problem with WG games. They can model armour models and artilley ballistics (simulated for "balance") for all they care, but the game balance system is so primitive it amounts to little more than "smother a ship from every direction with shells until it sinks, also HE is op just spam HE". Paired with dire AA and vision mechanics etc. it's a struggle to even represent certain elements in WoWs at all, much less do it justifiably to its realistic counterpart. All I know is "certain BB shells when hit will do exactly 4036 damage per shell every time as long as they don't bounce". Very detailed. Very strategic with tactical depth. Very Krupp system. Wow.

 

I have... no idea what you're talking about there. I mean, I understand, but I don't see how that's related to what I said and the links I posted. At all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
781 posts
4,327 battles

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.php

From your own link.

I can also tell you that the essay’s argument is very valid. Armoured flight deck boxing in explosion was how Taiho died (sank). The fumes first killed the engineers in the central engine drive who were also responsible for controlling the central damage control systems. But not like that makes a difference in WoWs, neither the technical details nor the touching story. Unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts

Are CVs really just focused on alpha damage as you suggest in your first post? I don't think so and I believe a lot of CV players will agree with me.

Yes, CVs do have a very good strike potential, however a good CV player also provides air cover and spotting and at least the last point is not less important than raw damage.

 

When your write "CV as support class" I have to think of what I know about the artillery change in WoT where - as far as I know - artillery shells deal less damage than they used to but give debuffs to tanks like stunned crew and damaged modules. I just can't see how you will add something similar to WoWS. Introducing strafing to "stun" ship's crew and maybe supress the use of consumables for a certain time might be the only thing but I doubt that is enough and will be done by WG. And changing CVs damage to pure (or nearly pure) DoT instead of high alpha damage? Hell no.

Also, CVs already cover a lot of support tasks like the aforementioned spotting and air cover and already do them pretty good if played in the right way.

The next thing is that doing damage probably is the most rewarding action. And I don't mean that in a "XXX damage gives YYY exp and credits" way but in a psychological one. I bet with you if you look at any MMO you won't find as many players playing a class which does nothing more than heal allies or looking for enemies without any (or an appropriate amount of) fire power compared to any damage dealing or even balanced class. It is just boring and doesn't feel rewarding if all you can do is let your planes hover over a ship so allies can shoot at it while you do some thousand damage per strike every so and so many minutes. so if you take away the strike potential and leave them with spotting and air cover you probably will drive away a lot of CV players.

 

Historical references are nice and all but WG doesn't want to build any kind of simulator. This game is not necessarily about historical soundness or what plane ascended and descended how fast. It should be balanced and not too complicated so even casual players can enjoy it. And as WG has shown a few times: "When in doubt ignore historical accuracy".

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,036 posts
2,939 battles
3 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.php

From your own link.

I can also tell you that the essay’s argument is very valid. Armoured flight deck boxing in explosion was how Taiho died (sank). The fumes first killed the engineers in the central engine drive who were also responsible for controlling the central damage control systems. But not like that makes a difference in WoWs, neither the technical details nor the touching story. Unfortunately.

 

Except that this is not the link I posted ?
Not my fault if you backtracked in the site and searched for things I didn't direct you to...

 

Look the difference :

My link : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php
Your link : http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[5D]
Players
427 posts
20,011 battles

They don't need to do anything with cvs except fix the buggy, laggy UI that they have given us now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
1,991 posts
11,146 battles
12 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

There were lots of good points in the original thread on the current CV meta, and how unbalanced it was. There were also some interesting concepts, including one from me, on possible directions for CV. However, the one I liked best was someone's concept on turning CVs into a support class; greatly lowered alpha damage potential, but better in everything else.

 

However, that would mean a completely new playstyle, even a complete overhaul on what is a CV in WoWs. Many mechanics will have to be changed, such as the normalizing of AA. New mechanics and systems will have to be designed, such as scoring for the CV, to balance it for surface gameplay, and allowing non-mirrored/tierlocked CV MM.

 

Thus I would like to invite discussion on how and what could a CV do if it is no longer focused on alpha damage as a class.

1. What new mechanics needs to be introduced.

2. What existing difficulties needs to be adapted to, or overcome.

3. How this could be historically sound.

 

Later on I will provide my own concepts on these points, similar to in the original thread as well, but better. But because I am not solely pre-occupied by this concept, and it is more demanding than the original "man-made spectacle" attempt (don't bother with reading it, it is already outdated), it will take some time. Please provide your own discussion for the time being. If there is any request or direct feedback please do not hesitate to notify me.

 

I specifically request insight into historical references.

Such as:

How many CV planes in total operated in one strike at a time. How many per CV. What is the composition between fighters/bombers/torpedo-bombers.

How long does it take for them to ascend to cruising altitude, and to descend to strike. Difference in strike protocols between DB and level-altitude bombers.

What is the strike percentage against different ship classes, historically. How successful were they for each ship class.

What is the historically accurate values for surface AA engagement ranges. 

What were the visibility ranges for plane-to-surface spotting, and surface-to-plane spotting, and plane-to-plane spotting. What were specific characteristics in such interactions.

How does surface-based strike planes factor into all this.

and etc.

 

Cheers and thanks.

somebody in CV killed you?

In top 10 ships sorted by DMG there only 3 CV.

so pls tell me again how CV must low their alpha?

maybe BBs should become support class? it seams that they by average top DMG charts.

 

also in tournament and games where people's are not nobs an know how to play CV is support

 

and why all ways people's with 0 I very small amount of games in CV opens topic like this??

 

only possible solution is that somebody butthurt them so they come to went on forum

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LOBUZ]
[LOBUZ]
Players
4,274 posts
16,004 battles

The problem is support classes are boring as hell and totally dependent on potatoes in their teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
1,991 posts
11,146 battles

o pls pls tell me more why DMG of CV must be lowered?? I just don't believe how this whiners don't check state before pathetic whine.

 

BBS tops the DMG charts not cvs

 

can you brain-dead grasp that 

 

he honest....somebody killed me in CV in game in CV so I came to went on forum.

 

don't mask your butthurt into some constructive post about balance

Screenshot_20180125-082032.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
961 posts
4,863 battles

CV are support assets. You'd know that if you played them. And no, we definitely don't need wg to murder this class the way they did arty in wot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[5D]
Players
427 posts
20,011 battles

I just hope they don't try to make cvs noob friendly so that anyone can just pick up a cv and still stand a chance against a super unicum player. It's the only class left in game that requires a high level of skill please leave it like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
961 posts
4,863 battles
6 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

I just hope they don't try to make cvs noob friendly so that anyone can just pick up a cv and still stand a chance against a super unicum player. It's the only class left in game that requires a high level of skill please leave it like that. 

While I support your notion, your argument is way off. Cruisers need a high level of skill to do well, as do dds. And in terms of positioning and planning ahead the same is true for bbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[5D]
Players
427 posts
20,011 battles
1 hour ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

While I support your notion, your argument is way off. Cruisers need a high level of skill to do well, as do dds. And in terms of positioning and planning ahead the same is true for bbs.

Let me rephrase then. It's the only class that needs a high level of skill to do very well in. In other classes you could just have a lucky game where ring smiles upon you (very rare but even boobs get those games) however in a cv if you can't get past the enemy cvs fighter or not know what targets to strike then you will do next to nothing. My point is nothing can shoot down shells in the air but they can shoot down planes which is the cvs equivalent to shells (bad analogy I know but you get the point) so yes, I agree that other classes require high levels of skill to consistently do well in but the cvs require a much higher level of skill to do well in especially if you are up against a good cv player who is able to shut the enemy cv down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,379 posts
12,680 battles
14 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

CVs are already a support class. Just because the majority of the playerbase is braindead, making CVs more influential beyond their inherent design, doesn't make it any less true.

Midway. Cough. I think the world record in dmg is broken almost everyday now. 

Stupid players or not that ship is broken OP.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
961 posts
4,863 battles
2 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

Midway. Cough. I think the world record in dmg is broken almost everyday now. 

Stupid players or not that ship is broken OP.

 

Until you take it into a competitive environment where a 4/2/2 haku will eat it alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,379 posts
12,680 battles
3 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Until you take it into a competitive environment where a 4/2/2 haku will eat it alive.

OFC. That goes for all ships. WG does not balance for competitive. 

Belfast is also OP until you meet a BB player that knows how to blap you in smoke. But that does not make it balanced. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,573 posts
4,887 battles

Op, can I suggest that you start with this list for load outs and tracking those through will also give you success rates etc providing you can find the details.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers

 

Two of the immediate problems I see with taking away the strike potential of CV:-

 

1) Actually CV's should dominate if allowed the opportunity, they are the Queens of the Sea, not BB's, not CA/CL's, not DDs. Every other ship in the game should be their support, not the other way around (for T6-T10 at least).

 

2) The only main alternative to strike is scouting, which they are already very good at if the player bothers to attempt it. DD's are already in trouble when a good CV player is against them, this will only hurt them more (unless their own CV protects them).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDUSH]
Players
1,068 posts
6,349 battles

Please not another "Nerf carriers!" thread! There is nothing wrong with carriers and their current role. (People checking my stats in 3...2...1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
1,991 posts
11,146 battles
17 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

Midway. Cough. I think the world record in dmg is broken almost everyday now. 

Stupid players or not that ship is broken OP.

 

and still Conqueror does more average dmg than him....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,573 posts
4,887 battles
3 minutes ago, Sargento_YO said:

. (People checking my stats in 3...2...1)

I waited for 5 seconds - just kidding ;)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,379 posts
12,680 battles
5 minutes ago, 15JG52Adler said:

and still Conqueror does more average dmg than him....

Those stats wont last long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
1,991 posts
11,146 battles
8 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

Those stats wont last long. 

DMG in last 2 weeks.

 

is clearly show that in top 10 dmg dealer are 3 cv.s.....difference betwean Conqueror and Midway is marginal, and Midway is loosing his t 10 fighters soon.

 

now in calm and rational manner pls point me to where do anybody see CV as top dmg dealer in this game.

 

also you can defend against planes, how can you defend against salvo of Conqueror......angling ?? :)

Bez naslova.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×