Can you please fix CVs?

[MFour]

11 hours ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

So basicly.

 

"Nerf CVs because I want to be 110% effective against every other ship class".

 

And it's not like you need 9 points dedicated to AAA to improve it to where you're a serious threat to planes.

And what you're saying is that the fact that there is one ship in the game should completely dictate either which captain build is viable or which playstyle of viable, and both of those in a direction where they are significantly less fun for the, you know, 11 other people who want to play this game. And you need at least AFT and either BFT or manual AA, in which case you're in triple 4 or double 3 skill point territory so you can kiss any full secondary or full tank build goodbye. There are only a few ships that can combat a Haku or Midway without these skills and without being in a blob. Maybe it is fairly balanced (if extremely poor game design), I'm not here talking about buffing or nerfing, I'm just saying that that's part of the reason why I much prefer games without CVs.

[AgarwaenME]

2 minutes ago, MFour said:

And what you're saying is that the fact that there is one ship in the game should completely dictate either which captain build is viable or which playstyle of viable, and both of those in a direction where they are significantly less fun for the, you know, 11 other people who want to play this game. And you need at least AFT and either BFT or manual AA, in which case you're in triple 4 or double 3 skill point territory so you can kiss any full secondary or full tank build goodbye. There are only a few ships that can combat a Haku or Midway without these skills and without being in a blob. Maybe it is fairly balanced (if extremely poor game design), I'm not here talking about buffing or nerfing, I'm just saying that that's part of the reason why I much prefer games without CVs.

 

 

First of all, stop pretending you speak for everyone else. Many players like battles with CVs even if they're not themselves in one. Many even play ships which trades other features for better innate AAA, ships who thus are far weaker if these features never come up. Removing CVs would thus require a full rebalance of every other ship.

 

And you're not making a ship useless by spending a minimum on AAA skills (and if you play a secondary build, you get a near full AAA build as a bonus, since you want both aft and bft for that, so claiming you can't have AAA with a secondary build is completely silly). And generic tank skills also work well to reduce the effect from CV attacks, be it faster repairs and damage controls, more consumables, lower dot durations etc etc. What really is the case is that some ships can make themselves nigh unattackable even going alone (depending on matchups ofc), if they invest more than a minimum amount.

 

Nor do you need a "blob" to counter most CVs, 2-3 ships sharing AAA auras already reduces the impace a CV can do just by doing damage (and no, you're not supposed to be able to be 100% immune).

 

Ie, "I don't play them so remove them since that's a buff for me always" is just nonsense.

 

[MFour]

19 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

 

First of all, stop pretending you speak for everyone else. Many players like battles with CVs even if they're not themselves in one. Many even play ships which trades other features for better innate AAA, ships who thus are far weaker if these features never come up. Removing CVs would thus require a full rebalance of every other ship.

 

And you're not making a ship useless by spending a minimum on AAA skills (and if you play a secondary build, you get a near full AAA build as a bonus, since you want both aft and bft for that, so claiming you can't have AAA with a secondary build is completely silly). And generic tank skills also work well to reduce the effect from CV attacks, be it faster repairs and damage controls, more consumables, lower dot durations etc etc. What really is the case is that some ships can make themselves nigh unattackable even going alone (depending on matchups ofc), if they invest more than a minimum amount.

 

Nor do you need a "blob" to counter most CVs, 2-3 ships sharing AAA auras already reduces the impace a CV can do just by doing damage (and no, you're not supposed to be able to be 100% immune).

 

Ie, "I don't play them so remove them since that's a buff for me always" is just nonsense.

 

I wonder what percentage of DD players would agree with you on that first statement. Would you rather be in a game with Midways or in a game without Midways when you queue up in a Shimakaze or a Yamato or a Hipper or a Zao? Or if you, god forbid, want to take hydro instead of def AA? I don't really think there are any ships left that are weaker without CVs, in the past this was attributed to USN cruisers but that has always been questionable at best. Completely balancing a ship around countering one specific class that can avoid it because it has orders of magnitude more maneuverability is a really poor design choice anyway so if there is something like that it should be fixed.

I know some people like to spec their Minotaurs for full full full AA and watch planes drop from the sky which is perfectly fine but I don't come play this game to watch RNGesus put purple ribbons in the top right of my screen.

 

Against a Haku or a Midway you're not going to survive without a major blob unless you have an AA Des Moines or Minotaur with you and if you're lower tier then you are probably completely SOL anyway unless that AA Des Moines is really hugging you (instead of doing something that is actually fun for him, or if you don't want to sit behind an island the whole game). I don't think you should take BFT for a secondary build, it forces you to drop CE and have fun getting into secondary range without CE. And again, even if you do drop CE for BFT you'll still be screwed against a top tier CV and if you also drop SI for MAA your ship is pretty severely gimped (and you still die when your AA has been destroyed by HE spam). What you're suggesting works in a Bismarck against a Hiryu or in an NC against a Shokaku, but it's kinda pointless to discuss those scenarios since I sincerely doubt that CV players would like the CV rework to be balancing everything to be like the NC-Shokaku interaction.

 

And you're missing the point, I'm trying to explain to you why many people prefer to play without CVs so that you understand which issues need to be addressed by the rework and that it isn't just "oh noes all my planes died to the enemy Kidd all AA needs to be nerfed and DDs should be defenseless against my planes so that's how WG should rebalance them".

 

 

[AgarwaenME]

5 minutes ago, MFour said:

I wonder what percentage of DD players would agree with you on that first statement. Would you rather be in a game with Midways or in a game without Midways when you queue up in a Shimakaze or a Yamato or a Hipper or a Zao? Or if you, god forbid, want to take hydro instead of def AA? I don't really think there are any ships left that are weaker without CVs, in the past this was attributed to USN cruisers but that has always been questionable at best. Completely balancing a ship around countering one specific class that can avoid it because it has orders of magnitude more maneuverability is a really poor design choice anyway so if there is something like that it should be fixed.

I know some people like to spec their Minotaurs for full full full AA and watch planes drop from the sky which is perfectly fine but I don't come play this game to watch RNGesus put purple ribbons in the top right of my screen.

 

Against a Haku or a Midway you're not going to survive without a major blob unless you have an AA Des Moines or Minotaur with you and if you're lower tier then you are probably completely SOL anyway unless that AA Des Moines is really hugging you (instead of doing something that is actually fun for him, or if you don't want to sit behind an island the whole game). I don't think you should take BFT for a secondary build, it forces you to drop CE and have fun getting into secondary range without CE. And again, even if you do drop CE for BFT you'll still be screwed against a top tier CV and if you also drop SI for MAA your ship is pretty severely gimped (and you still die when your AA has been destroyed by HE spam). What you're suggesting works in a Bismarck against a Hiryu or in an NC against a Shokaku, but it's kinda pointless to discuss those scenarios since I sincerely doubt that CV players would like the CV rework to be balancing everything to be like the NC-Shokaku interaction.

 

And you're missing the point, I'm trying to explain to you why many people prefer to play without CVs so that you understand which issues need to be addressed by the rework and that it isn't just "oh noes all my planes died to the enemy Kidd all AA needs to be nerfed and DDs should be defenseless against my planes so that's how WG should rebalance them".

 

 

 

Just because I look at a matchup, any matchup, and go "damn, I don't like that opposing my ship" is no reason whatsoever to entirely remove that type of ship from the game. I don't like massive AAA ships when I play CVs.. so remove AAA, I don't like radar or sonars when I play DDs, so remove those ships, I don't like 5 BBs spraying shells to randomly citadel my CAs, so remove BBs, I don't like permaburning in BBs so remove HE, I don't like targets that fire in ways where I can't just fire back, so remove smoke, cover and stealth... 

 

Just make this the only and default mode:

 

The rest is just more generic overblown hyperbole. No you don't need a full "blob" to neuter a t10 CV (again, just like against EVERY OTHER SHIP CLASS you're not supposed to be entirely immune).

 

As it is, CVs are already very very rare, barely do more damage than BBs, can very easily be countered (but just like torps, fire or whatever else, a lot still fail to do so), while every ship in the game is balanced somewhat around them being a possibility, and entirely ignoring a minimum investment in captain skills or upgrades should be something that costs you from time to time. "But I want to specc like CW all the time" isn't a valid argument.

[MFour]

14 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Just because I look at a matchup, any matchup, and go "damn, I don't like that opposing my ship" is no reason whatsoever to entirely remove that type of ship from the game. I don't like massive AAA ships when I play CVs.. so remove AAA, I don't like radar or sonars when I play DDs, so remove those ships, I don't like 5 BBs spraying shells to randomly citadel my CAs, so remove BBs, I don't like permaburning in BBs so remove HE, I don't like targets that fire in ways where I can't just fire back, so remove smoke, cover and stealth... 

 

Just make this the only and default mode:

 

The rest is just more generic overblown hyperbole. No you don't need a full "blob" to neuter a t10 CV (again, just like against EVERY OTHER SHIP CLASS you're not supposed to be entirely immune).

 

As it is, CVs are already very very rare, barely do more damage than BBs, can very easily be countered (but just like torps, fire or whatever else, a lot still fail to do so), while every ship in the game is balanced somewhat around them being a possibility, and entirely ignoring a minimum investment in captain skills or upgrades should be something that costs you from time to time. "But I want to specc like CW all the time" isn't a valid argument.

If there is one ship that most other ships hate being against unless they're specifically specced to fight him that becomes a serious design issue. There isn't really anything else in the game that has such an effect. Of course removing CVs isn't viable, maybe it was 3 years ago before they even existed but unfortunately nobody realized the mistake back then (too busy getting deleted by 5 Taiho TBs =P). All we can do to fix this situation is a well executed CV rework, but until then I think I'm well within my rights to not be happy to see a CV in the game and to want it to be fixed.

 

The problem against high tier CVs is that if you're not completely immune, two minutes down the line when either your cruiser dies or your AA gets stripped down by HE or any number of other things happens you are completely screwed.

 

You call what I say hyperbole yet you're continuously understating the effect a CV has on the game, so it doesn't seem like we can come to any sort of agreement here...

[Infiriel]

1. One Minotaur with full AA build is enough to make any carrier ragequit.
2. If you get deleted by enemy carrier it`s not your cv`s fault, but rather your own, for not staying with cruisers. Not BB is immune to carriers.

3. It is entirely possible to win even if your CV is afk - i did that quite a few times already.

 

Where is that bingo card guy?

[Exocet6951]

16 minutes ago, MFour said:

If there is one ship that most other ships hate being against unless they're specifically specced to fight him that becomes a serious design issue.

 

I hate being in a BB and targeted by a DD, unless I'm in a Missouri.
Serious game design issue.

 

I hate being in a DD and being targeted by a fast cruiser with radar, unless I'm in a Kebab.
Serious game design issue.

I hate being in a cruiser, and being targeted by a BB, unless I have great mobility and concealment.
Serious game design issue.


Almost as if it appeared that what you meant was "it's a serious game design issue if I'm being countered".

[MFour]

10 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

I hate being in a BB and targeted by a DD, unless I'm in a Missouri.
Serious game design issue.

 

I hate being in a DD and being targeted by a fast cruiser with radar, unless I'm in a Kebab.
Serious game design issue.

I hate being in a cruiser, and being targeted by a BB, unless I have great mobility and concealment.
Serious game design issue.


Almost as if it appeared that what you meant was "it's a serious game design issue if I'm being countered".

It becomes a game design issue when one ship does this for most others, is that really such a difficult distinction to make?

[Shagulon]

People forgot how to play against CVs, I really dislike people that complain instead of trying to find a way to win despite of their issue. You generally die to a CV if you made a strategic error, or (more annoyingly) your team did. You can try to use chat, but people often don't listen. They want to do whatever they do normally (when there is no CV) and they complain when they lose/die...

[El2aZeR]

5 hours ago, Systergummi said:

As most people dont want to drag their team down with them when they feel their skills are lacking.

 

If this were true we'd lose 90% of the playerbase in an instant. As far as statistics go CV numbers have been very much stable.

There are plenty of reasons why CVs aren't popular, none of them have to do with feeling inadequate.

 

5 hours ago, Systergummi said:

A solution once given by @El2aZer is to make battles twice or three times as big. I-Chase suggested making CVs work like they do in Battle of Midway where you must pilot the aircraft from within and thus can only pilot one squad at a time. Is any of it viable?

 

No. Making battles bigger was only to appease the incredibly stupid belief that more CVs per match will solve anything. It won't because playing alone against multiple CVs of inferior, same or even superior skill level is not only possible, it is hilariously easy if you just understand the basics of CV play and fighter combat. The overall impact of a skilled CV on a match will increase heavily as you have not only increased the amount of players getting shut down by a skilled CV, you have also increased the number of targets as the average playerbase, both CVs and non-CVs, is unlikely to change in their ways. CVs do not benefit from sheer numbers in air-to-air combat and haven't since forever, it is why having more than two fighter squads give you incredibly diminished returns in random battles.

Thus you create a scenario where a single skilled CV will be able to shut down air space against all opposing CVs completely, making his own CV teammates capable of operating with impunity. More CVs per game will only make things worse in the current iteration of CV play.

 

iChase didn't suggest anything, he argued vehemently against it and explained thoroughly why manually piloting aircraft will not work in any shape, form or fashion with current gameplay. If you were to implement some form of manually piloted aircraft you'd also have to rework other core aspects of the game, which is inevitably going to change everything including how surface combat is conducted.

The game is also called Battlestations just fyi.

 

4 hours ago, MFour said:

There are only a few ships that can combat a Haku or Midway without these skills and without being in a blob.

 

Again, these ships were meant to be the most numerous around in a battle and I can tell you from experience that being in a high tier cruiser heavy game is way beyond a nightmare as a CV. A single AA cruiser is capable of locking down as much as 16km of air space in diameter, having 5 or 6 of them around in a match without sheer numbers of BBs to keep them passive makes well over half the map inaccessible to aircraft.

Measuring CVs with the current meta doesn't work, stop trying to do so. If the average player wants to keep BBs as the most popular class around by far, eliminating natural counters of CVs from matches, getting their faces kicked in by CVs is simply something they'll have to accept. And as long as the core problem (aka BB overpopulation) isn't actually addressed it should stay that way.

[ForceM1782]

11 hours ago, Systergummi said:

Its funny that some things are always diskussed in these threads and some are always avoided. The elephant in the room is the fact that in all other classes the skill gap between players are balanced by having multiple ships of that class. Not so with CVs. This leads to a dwindeling number of active CV-players. As most people dont want to drag their team down with them when they feel their skills are lacking. Leaving only the truely good ones and the guys who do not care or are incapable of realizing how bad they are. So untill this issue is fixed we will have theese threads. A solution once given by @El2aZer is to make battles twice or three times as big. I-Chase suggested making CVs work like they do in Battle of Midway where you must pilot the aircraft from within and thus can only pilot one squad at a time. Is any of it viable?

 

Well said.

No idea if the Battle of Midway approach is feasible, but it would make a CV a shooter-game, much like the rest of the classes. If that goes together with manual aiming of AAA guns for the other ships and of course re balancing of bombs and torps, it might work.

 

If they want to make less radical changes, there would also be a few possibilities.

Maybe just toning down both damage from CV planes and AAA would make sense.

 

I mean other players hate to be outright deleted by a good carrier strike. And maybe carriers should not be so over-influential on a games outcome that they are banned from clan battles and decide Random games single-handedly.

 

On the other hand on high tiers AAA is so devastating thata carrier player that just doesn’t spot an AAA ship for mere seconds loses whole squadrons immediately. Reducing the kills on planes, but making it panic planes after a while would be an option maybe.

 

That could make the game just a bit more forgiving for both sides. And reduce the hate against carriers in general.

 

Even if a carrier loses on damage, let’s say we bring an average carrier game down to what an average BB can do or even a bit less, it would still be more influential than any other class with its reach, scouting and DoT mechanics.

[El2aZeR]

17 minutes ago, ForceM1782 said:

it might work

 

No it would not. The very fundamentals in surface combat prevent this from happening. You literally cannot conduct surface combat and AA operations at the same time. You will either need dedicated players that focus purely on AA and forsake surface combat entirely, requiring a level of coordination that is way beyond what the average player is capable of, or you need to slow down gameplay significantly, both of which require basically a complete redesign of the game.

Imagine you're in a brawl with an enemy ship and a CV swoops in to attack you. With manually controlled AA you would need to choose which threat to ignore and which one to focus on and regardless of how you choose you're basically [edited].

Heck, the very presence of aircraft will be able to prevent you from attacking other ships. A CV could simply fly evasive maneuvers all the time to make you incapable of targeting his teammates. If he sees that you're choosing to ignore him he swoops in without risk and kills you.

 

The automated AA system is a necessary evil, full manually controlled AA would not work with the basis of this game.

[Shader12]

On 22/03/2018 at 10:51 AM, Drasnighta said:

I.Just.Really.Hate.CVs.

 

I second this and sign under this with my both arms.

 

 

 

Can you guys explain to me how suggestion thread works here? I came up with a little thingy regarding torpedo bombing, and I'd like to try to put it somewhere as a suggestion, but don't really know how or where

[Culiacan_Mexico]

23 hours ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

So basicly.

 

"Nerf CVs because...

 

 

I believe WG is going to make fundamental changes to CVs because they have not found away to balance them to their satisfaction.

[Exocet6951]

9 hours ago, MFour said:

It becomes a game design issue when one ship does this for most others, is that really such a difficult distinction to make?

It is because it's fundamentally subjective.

Fun fact, CVs are an actual problem when it's higher tier than your ship, when you're in a ship of large dimension with poor AA and that operates more independently from the rest of the team.

IE: mid to high tier non US DDs with smoke on cooldown.
 

 

I legitimately cannot remember the last time I was directly or indirectly killed by a CV, and I've been playing the pair of T7 IJN DDs lately,and I grinded a Normandie, a ship with T4 level AA facing the seal clubber tier CVs.

[Darky_Madness]

On 22-3-2018 at 10:51 AM, Drasnighta said:

I hate Aircraft carriers. If anything makes my blood boil it's the site of a couple of enemy torpedo bomber squads hovering around a short distance away, waiting for you to extinguish that 2nd fire so they can swoop down and flood you to death.

 

But it's also the fact that they have such a huge effect on the outcome of the battle. If your CV is an incompetent wallet-warrior in his T8 Enterprise, the enemy CV will just dominate your team and (unless the rest of their team is trash) single handedly pull a victory.

 

The sheer number of squadrons that they can put into the air from a single carrier and focus down a solitary ship. I was in my Monarch today, with an enemy Shokaku on the other team. Our CV wasn't exactly useless, but he just wasn't focused enough on who was doing what, and supporting the right ships. Anyway, I decided I'd use my concealment (10.9 km, I run full concealment build) and support a Charles Martel and a Chung Mu pushing a capture (this is what I should be doing, right? Not camping at the back with HE).

 

Anyway, there was an enemy Kidd there. We pinged our CV for fire support, but obviously he wasn't going to risk his fighters over a Kidd with defensive AA. So he didn't come (well, that's why I assume he didn't support us). Shokaku dive bombers got past the Martel and bombed me, setting me on fire twice. I let myself burn, knowing he'd probably have more bombers on the way. Sure enough, torpedo bomber squadrons appeared. The Martel bailed out, leaving me to eat 4 of the torpedoes and eventually burning to death thanks to some blind-fired shells from a cruiser.

 

Something needs to change. I want to push and be aggressive/support my team in a capture point. But if our CV isn't competent enough to help, then I can't do this very well.

 

Maybe if the amount of squadrons all carriers could hold was reduced, and more carriers were allowed into battles (and encouraged) it would be better perhaps? Then there would be teamwork in order to make these targeted kills and also it would reduce the chance of your team losing purely because your carrier player isn't all that good.

 

Sorry for ranting a bit. I.Just.Really.Hate.CVs.

 

 

 

 

 

Asking a Cv to send planes towards a Kidd thats asking a cruiser to sit still in front of the yamato guns so he can give you a suprise.

[TomBombardil]

On 24-3-2018 at 12:35 PM, MFour said:

Against a Haku or a Midway you're not going to survive without a major blob unless you have an AA Des Moines or Minotaur with you and if you're lower tier then you are probably completely SOL anyway unless that AA Des Moines is really hugging you (instead of doing something that is actually fun for him, or if you don't want to sit behind an island the whole game). I don't think you should take BFT for a secondary build, it forces you to drop CE and have fun getting into secondary range without CE. And again, even if you do drop CE for BFT you'll still be screwed against a top tier CV and if you also drop SI for MAA your ship is pretty severely gimped (and you still die when .......

Bla Bla Bla (captain skills)! And what does the CV get for CptS that improves his air to ship combat-abillaty? Zero, squad, non, (ooh an extra DB to get shot down by that extra fighter. Ooh 2 seconds faster TB turnaround while landed, scary!) what.? I have a 19 point captain? What the hell do spend my last 8 points on? Noting is actually useful, AdRu my planes won't land and takeoff fast enoufh, not reload? AA I'm all ready good eneufh AA. EmTo? I shouldn't be on fire when I need my deck! 

 

Complaining about (AA) captains build? EVERY SKILL IS A F*NG Bonus! Where are the CVS ones? Only to better counter other CVs? 

 

On 24-3-2018 at 1:50 PM, MFour said:

It becomes a game design issue when one ship does this for most others, is that really such a difficult distinction to make?

I hate being a CV and having 1 AA ship (KIDD, Montana, CL.) denieing me half of the map. Let alone that ALL 12 enemy ships have AA, float fighter and fighters vs me. it's like playing a 12vs1!

Unless I'm in a.......? (top-tier Saipan?)

 

 

DD don't wanne spot a Minotaur, too dangerous a Minotaur close to a dd.

DDs can't torp a Minotaur, hydro.

 

BB won't advance to enemy AP porkypine smoke (Minotaur) , or shoot  the Minotaur, can't see in smoke.

 

Cruisers won't engaged AP porkypine smoke (Minotaur), they can't see her. To much potential dmg.  Unless your radar....... nope still to dangerous to get in radar range.

 

CV won't come near a Minotaur, not to spot not to dmg. Hell all smokes are 8,2km no fly zones since you can't see from witch ones your planes are dying from.

 

Serious game design issue.

 

UNLESS: your the super unicum that can shoot smoke, or put your tanking pants on an lead the charge to that 1 ship. Since no one plays for each-other and only for themselfs (exp/credits/dmg stats). 

 

Serious game design issue. For real this time!!

 

In the same corner, high hp body blocking for low hp, maneuverable doging "potential" dmg for unmaneuverable (DDs baiting TB drops) , I do it, even with that intent, well my stats aren't purple though, guess why^^, ooh I play team!

On 24-3-2018 at 3:32 PM, El2aZeR said:

If the average player wants to keep BBs as the most popular class around by far, eliminating natural counters of CVs from matches, getting their faces kicked in by CVs is simply something they'll have to accept. And as long as the core problem (aka BB overpopulation) isn't actually addressed it should stay that way.

This, 1 or 2 AA ships = intant CV counterd. No skill, no counterplay. Just a hard shutdown by being there! DFAA = "Press Y to win",  the original! and STILL true, even more true, not even a "you pressed Y to late buddy, skilled aim, drop allready ok"

 

On 24-3-2018 at 10:41 PM, Culiacan_Mexico said:

believe WG is going to make fundamental changes to CVs because they have not found away to balance them to their satisfaction.

 

First FIX THE BASICS:

User Interface, 

Exp reward to reward TEAM play (spotting,,, cough,,,,)

UI,

Fighter click random overwelming outcomes (6-7 -> 5-0, I lost 7 planes to his 6, and he just 1? Pray to RNGesus! 

UI.

Detaild EXP rewards (info=education).

UI.

Relief DDs by making something els (*high HP pool*) vulnerable to (alpha) cv strikes.

UI.

Reduce AA range so planes have a corridors to reach something els than DDs.

UI.

CptSkills & modules too AA favoured & to influational in AA diversatie.

 UI.

DFAA press Y to win (scatter, slow, kill) vs ALL planes even in longest range AA , even those dual purpose +100% dpm ma.

2min DFAA on CVs? Why 2min? To get there fighters back from opposite boarder? Via boarder humping? 180 seconds? 10% of the battle duration! Untuched even with the introduction of strafe (&strafe+)!

UI.

AA from unknown source (smoked, how the hell can he render my planes? Let alone shoot them? I can't even glance that my planes are under AA!)

UI.

1 floatplane scatters & slows whole squad? ALL 7 of them? And you have 2 of them? per ship?

UI.

Clear Skys -》carrier based Aircraft (@Crysantos is that so hard? Tag is allready there!).

UI.

Plane render & detectability range, or at least info about it, and what factors influence these (tier? Mountains? #planes?).

UI.

 Skill based drops! Or at least a little, to a certain extent progressing smaller DB circle as time passes from when set? (@El2aZeR thx for the suggestion!)

UI.

Consumable equipped  info (loading screen), Consumable usage info (map view?)

 

I didn't forget to mention UI, did I? that User Interface!

 

Maby if this is all adressed you can look in to the CV itself again. With a healthy CV population since they're not laggy and less skill floor dependent!

[Culiacan_Mexico]

3 hours ago, TomBombardil said:

First FIX THE BASICS:

Just my opinion.

 

I would say the basics revolves around a failed concept WG tried to implement: we will make the most versatile ship, with limited active counters, the most influential, while at the same time restricting encounters to generally one vs one amplifying the disparity in skill between CV players.  

 

Battleships and cruisers have active counters and generally a health population, which creates a sort of game balance.  A team of all cruiser vs one of eleven cruisers and a single battleships would not be a reason to been very concerned, because that BB would be focused and burned very quickly or they would have to hide and be ineffective.  The same can't be said if the BB is replaced with a CV, because the only active counter to a CV... is another CV.

 

As the number of DD players at mid-tier has fallen, the same issue is starting to appear... with regards to DDs.  DDs have three active counters:  CV, DDs and cruisers.  In the current BB meta, cruiser abilities are restricted, DD numbers are way down (perhaps by 50% from previous levels), and CV are a mixed bag... the end result is that a decent DD player now has a greater influence on the games outcome; and the greater the disparity in skill between opposing DD players, the more pronounce the influence is. 

 

WG has spent three years adjusting CVs: this carriers will now be a 1-2-1 instead of a 1-1-3, changing the number of planes in a squad, adding massive AA abilities to some ships, or just adding gimmicks.  These changes did not fix CV because none addressed the core issue, and until that is done CV balance is impossible.

 

 

[ForceM1782]

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

No it would not. The very fundamentals in surface combat prevent this from happening. You literally cannot conduct surface combat and AA operations at the same time. You will either need dedicated players that focus purely on AA and forsake surface combat entirely, requiring a level of coordination that is way beyond what the average player is capable of, or you need to slow down gameplay significantly, both of which require basically a complete redesign of the game.

Imagine you're in a brawl with an enemy ship and a CV swoops in to attack you. With manually controlled AA you would need to choose which threat to ignore and which one to focus on and regardless of how you choose you're basically [edited].

Heck, the very presence of aircraft will be able to prevent you from attacking other ships. A CV could simply fly evasive maneuvers all the time to make you incapable of targeting his teammates. If he sees that you're choosing to ignore him he swoops in without risk and kills you.

 

The automated AA system is a necessary evil, full manually controlled AA would not work with the basis of this game.

Well i write that i don’t know if it’s feasible. But i didn’t mean for balancing reasons actually.

 

If you change only this, okay then you might run into problems. But if you consider that there would be less squadrons, and they would only be truly efficient when you control the planes yourself, this might be another story. This brings another balance to this matter than before but it’s not said it would be worse.

 

It’s also not so different from now, where sometimes you need to decide to dodge torps but to present broadside to an enemy ship. All in all, Fighting 2 ships at the same time is not so different from fighting a ship and a squad of bombers. In either case you need to prioritize. And many games demand multitasking of you, including this one. DDs need to keep constant track of their surfoundings, while fighting, dropping torps and dodging shells.

 

Then, who says that your AAA would not automatically work at all? It would just be pretty inefficient if not manned by yourself, just like a carriers planes would be less efficient while he does not control them directly.

There is a concurrent game that does exactly this with rear gunners. You can control them yourself, or you can just focus on flying and bombing. Works pretty well imho. Why not have this for WoWS.

 

That being said, personally i would prefer to keep CVs as an RTS element in WoWS instead of this. But i would not go as far as to say it could not work. They just need to do it properly and with all according balance changes.

[El2aZeR]

12 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

The same can't be said if the BB is replaced with a CV, because the only active counter to a CV.

 

Sure felt like such a victim when I wiped out entire squadrons yesterday by having them enter my over 16km diameter of [edited] you for more than 5 seconds. And I don't even have MAA skilled on my Mino.

AA may be passive in nature, but it can 100% deny any damage potential of the CV and he is forced to enter it to deal damage so it's all good. If AA were active, like e.g. fighters, then it would need to lose these abilities and give the CV ways to counterplay it just like fighters, which then becomes a cluster[edited] because it goes against the very reason AA even exists.

 

10 hours ago, ForceM1782 said:

There is a concurrent game that does exactly this with rear gunners. You can control them yourself, or you can just focus on flying and bombing. Works pretty well imho. Why not have this for WoWS.

 

The ground doesn't shoot you like the fighter would, unlike aircraft and the enemy ship which are both going for your throat. To say that scenario is incomparable to the situations in WoWs is an understatement.

AA being automatic but essentially worthless without manual control defeats the entire purpose of having AA to begin with. It also still does nothing against baiting strategies I mentioned. Currently turning in to incoming aircraft and fighting an enemy ship can be done simultaneously, that will not be the case with a system you're envisioning. Having manually controlled AA means such a system must be used in the first place, but as it is in direct conflict with the core of the game it becomes an impossibility unless you overhaul the game almost entirely with that in mind. Sure, it could be done, but not without discarding WoWs as it currently is.

The multitasking that playing e.g. DDs needs doesn't require you to forsake the major part of this game entirely. It in fact works towards the goal of conducting surface warfare and does not stand in conflict with it in any way.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Sure felt like such a victim when I wiped out entire squadrons yesterday by having them enter my over 16km diameter of [edited] you for more than 5 seconds. And I don't even have MAA skilled on my Mino.

AA may be passive in nature, but it can 100% deny any damage potential of the CV and he is forced to enter it to deal damage so it's all good. If AA were active, like e.g. fighters, then it would need to lose these abilities and give the CV ways to counterplay it just like fighters, which then becomes a cluster[edited] because it goes against the very reason AA even exists.

The current AA system is not even close to satisfactory; and while I don't play CV or AA ships, watching squadrons being wiped out in game doesn't sound like good game design... more like a gimmick... and if I might say... a low skill passive gimmick. 

[El2aZeR]

Just now, Culiacan_Mexico said:

The current AA system is not even close to satisfactory; and while I don't play CV or AA ships, watching squadrons being wiped out in game doesn't sound like good game design.

 

The thing is that dealing damage isn't what a CV is primarily supposed to do. A CV's job is to scout, that is their only inherent ability. Attacking anything usually requires the target to be alone, not to be covered by fighters, not being an AA ship and occasionally being HE spammed. This balances out their scouting potential which is arguably the most powerful ability in the game. To compensate for the ease of which aircraft can be countered whenever a CV does get a strike in the damage potential is massive. From a game design point of view the overall system is actually fairly well thought out.

 

I'm not saying that the current AA system is fine. It is most definitely not and there is room for plenty of improvement, but the framework is pretty solid. Any active AA system wouldn't really work unless you overhaul a lot of major mechanics and acclimate the playerbase to what is essentially an entirely new game as I've illustrated above.

[VC381]

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

The thing is that dealing damage isn't what a CV is primarily supposed to do. A CV's job is to scout, that is their only inherent ability. Attacking anything usually requires the target to be alone, not to be covered by fighters, not being an AA ship and occasionally being HE spammed. This balances out their scouting potential which is arguably the most powerful ability in the game. To compensate for the ease of which aircraft can be countered whenever a CV does get a strike in the damage potential is massive. From a game design point of view the overall system is actually fairly well thought out.

 

I'm not saying that the current AA system is fine. It is most definitely not and there is room for plenty of improvement, but the framework is pretty solid. Any active AA system wouldn't really work unless you overhaul a lot of major mechanics and acclimate the playerbase to what is essentially an entirely new game as I've illustrated above.

 

What you say makes sense but everything about the way CVs is balanced is really "all or nothing". Either you catch someone you can strike and delete them, or you can't strike at all. Either you win the air war and spot for free or you lose it and can't spot at all. Either you strafe or they strafe and one way or another one of you now holds all the cards. I've always advocated for example having more squadrons and/or more planes in each but with less HP and less bomb/torpedo damage per plane. So you can go do your strike, lose some planes, get a few hits anyway, get some damage that isn't so devastating the target cries for a week, do it again more frequently. Everything just needs normalizing a bit in my opinion.

[El2aZeR]

26 minutes ago, VC381 said:

I've always advocated for example having more squadrons and/or more planes in each but with less HP and less bomb/torpedo damage per plane. So you can go do your strike, lose some planes, get a few hits anyway, get some damage that isn't so devastating the target cries for a week, do it again more frequently

 

The thing is that no matter how you twist it such a scenario inherently doesn't exist because losing a lot of planes for minimal damage is a loss for the CV most of the time. It is already possible for this to happen, but an experienced CV player will actively avoid such situations unless forced to take it.

 

Normalization should happen for AA to make it less dependent on skills and upgrades, but the inherent design won't change with that.

[TomBombardil]

 

On 25-3-2018 at 11:07 PM, El2aZeR said:

On 25-3-2018 at 10:52 PM, VC381 said:

I've always advocated for example having more squadrons and/or more planes in each but with less HP and less bomb/torpedo damage per plane. So you can go do your strike, lose some planes, get a few hits anyway, get some damage that isn't so devastating the target cries for a week, do it again more frequently

 

The thing is that no matter how you twist it such a scenario inherently doesn't exist because losing a lot of planes for minimal damage is a loss for the CV most of the time. It is already possible for this to happen, but an experienced CV player will actively avoid such situations unless forced to take it.

@VC381 I tink you forgot in your example that the # of planes also have this X*. And with this I will/have also advocated this. Why, less whole value rng.

 

The outcome of 1 minus\plus <0,51

will result in 0,49=0 ; 1; 1,51= 2.

(1-\+<0.51= 0;1;2)

Now we do the same but everything times 10*. 

10-\+<5.1= 5<->15.

You eliminated the 0,5(*10=5) losses or gains from rounding value.

 

Let's apply this to Wows and planes. 1 plane is actually *10 planes. 1 AA = actually *10 AA. 1 Torb = actually 10 torps (P*10, AA*10, T/10).

So DMG 1TB(old)=DMG 10TB(new).

-RNG shoots down 0,33:  1-0,33=0,67=1 (plane not shot down) vs 10-3,3=6,7=7

Old; plane not shot down = full dmg. New: does 0.7 of old Torp dmg

-RNG shoots down 0,66:  1-0,64=0,36=0 vs 10-6,4=3,6=4

Old: plane shot down: 0 Dmg, New; does 0,4 of old Torp dmg.

 

The whole system becomes less binarie

The bigger X* the beter for less binary. 

But what is viable ingame. I think a 1,5*/2* would already help a lot without cluttering to much.

 

But my personal favourite about fixing plane surviveability is:

"HIT Counters"(/tokens).

Every plane in squad has 2/3/x tokens. With Of course 2/3/X improved "hit" RNG

X-rounds of RNG until. RNG said "hit", RNG rolls plane #3 = -1 token #3plane. X-rounds of RNG until "hit".RNG rolls plane #4 (had 1 dmg token left due to previous engagements) plane #4 goes down. Etc..... 

Manual AA bonus can be (semi-)focused "hits" on same #plane in squad. (first plane #1,,, than #2,,,,etc). And fighter click battles #plane RNG/focused/CptS semi-focused (semi-focused = not the highest token#)?

Maby "focuser" fire to strong,  trade off -20AA value? CbtS removes this penalty for manualAA DP guns?

 

Best is a combo of course! Need to rebalanced HP/AA value (="hit" yes/no RNG) to have the desired survivability outcome!

 

@El2aZeR so as you can see I twisted and turned it. And it is no loss or gain for the CV just less Binary, and in my favourite fix less RNG dependent!

 

Even if this is doable, Don't think WG will ever "think of" /brainstorm this concept. What do you think @Crysantos, @Sub_OctavianDid this pass in a brainstorming session?

 

THIS AIN'T A BUFF OR NERF "need to rebalance". IT IS AN "new" MECHANIC!