Jump to content


Revert CVs to Launch status


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Peregrinas #1 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:55 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,748
  • Member since:
    05-16-2015

Word of warning: no trolling allowed. You know who you are. 


CV population has heavily declined ever since CVs were nerfed into the ground soon after Launch. AA has been getting increasingly powerful since then. I think the community can agree that WG isn't sure what to do about CVs right now, and I suggest that we reset CVs back to when CVs were popular, while of course keeping AA as it is right now.

 

What does this mean?

 

A few mechanics changes. First of all, fighters will not lock each other in combat. This means that fighters can continue attacking bombers even when they themselves are under attack and to provide the very valuable panic mechanic against attacking bombers.

 

Second, fighters will not auto-retaliate when under attack. This rewards attentive players.

 

Third, the removal of strafe. I don't understand why WG put this in in the first place. It increased the skill gap tremendously, and the community agrees that a huge skill gap between two CVs in the same game is detrimental for the quality of the game. Sure, it rewards attentive players, but so did the system beforehand (which I just explained: no fighter lock and no auto-retaliation). Strafe gives the incredibly powerful ability to wipe out aircraft in a mere instant. It would be fine if there was a decent spool-up time or warning to the other CV, but strafe is just too broken to be effective without causing significant levels of frustration to the opposing player. Part of the time, you can't even tell which direction the strafe is happening until it's too late. 

 

And finally, the removal of strafe-to-disengage. However, this should be obvious with the removal of both strafe and fighter lock. Strafe-to-disengage completely nullifies a player's effort to lure and trap enemy fighters. Especially when played against Saipan which incurs absolutely zero penalty for being outplayed and trapped as they can disengage without losing a single fighter.

 

There are also the CV loadouts that will be brought back, such as Essex and Midway's 1/2/2 loadouts, Lexington's 2/1/1 loadout, and Langley's 1/0/1 (edit: 1/1/0) loadout, to name a few. Why would I rather have Langley's 1/0/1 1/1/0 over 1/1/1? The answer lies in the reserves. With 1/1/1, Langley does not have enough reserves for a second full squad of each type, which is highly detrimental to its ability to hold in longer games the moment it loses four aircraft of a single type.

 

How might these changes affect the game on a greater level? 

 

Firstly, it will help to bring popularity back to CVs. They will be more comfortable to play and will be easier on new captains. The primary problem with CVs right now is that as soon as a new captain steps into mid-tier, they get absolutely dominated by someone who has the slightest idea of how to strafe. There is zero willingness to learn after being repeatedly dominated, after which abandonment of the CV line follows. CVs in their current state are the most frustrating ships to play since they have the greatest possible skill-gap of all ships. The community knows all too well what happens in games where one CV dominates the other.

 

(Edit: especially with the addition of premium CVs where anyone with some money can jump straight into mid to high tier CVs, with the upcoming Kaga and Enterprise premium CVs, I think we can all agree largely as a whole that we don't want to continue seeing huge differences in skill, considering that the CV population is now mostly reserved to skilled players)

 

A resurgence of CVs will help AA-focused ships, namely USN BBs and CLs/CAs. AA is now mostly just an afterthought when it comes to balancing. But if CVs are present in nearly all games across all tiers, then AA can certainly be a balancing factor, which is why IJN ships began outperforming USN ships as the CV population declined rapidly in the high tiers. The Des Moines, for example, has been power-crept by ships like Minotaur and to a lesser extent, Neptune, which is why DM was recently buffed in stats outside of AA. And now Hood has a kill-all button, as long as her rockets haven't been destroyed, which goes completely against history as the Hood was not known for AA and her rockets were a failure instead of the huge success as portrayed in-game (but that's for a different thread for someone else).


Edited by Peregrinas, 19 May 2017 - 09:15 PM.


Lord_Zath #2 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:04 PM

    Commander

  • WoWS Wiki Editor
  • Beta Testers
    Supertester

  • 3,108
  • Member since:
    12-02-2013
100% agreed.  Strafe is one of the most broken mechanics in the game.


TheBossNC #3 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:08 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 158
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015
This could actually work. Of course the BB community would probably disagree but I'd be ok if this happened.

dark.png

Pelagic Pirates 


DokturProfesur #4 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:19 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,767
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013
As much as I hate aircraft carriers, I wouldn't mind seeing them in a better position if it means frustrating the people who give me a bad name out of playing battleships. I tentatively put my lot in with the proposal, although its reality is dubious at best.

 

As a pretty strict BB player since beta, I would like to point out that I think torpedos are fine, HE damage is fine -fire chance and/or fire damage notwithstanding-, carriers are fine, and generally cruiser RoF is fine.

 

My tendency to think my team will follow me into the jaws of glory, however, is what's wrong.


TalonV #5 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,502
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Rolling back the wheel? Umm no. I'm just going to say, law of untended consequences.

 

CVs need more than to be rolled back, all their mechanics just need to be overhauled.


 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


TenguBlade #6 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:23 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,274
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

Disagree with this on multiple accounts.  Firstly, the reverting of CVs to their state at the start of OBT means the return of tier-for-tier aircraft upgrades and a reversion to the older AA damage model.  I understand that you said to keep AA as it is, but if you revert the aircraft hierarchy, you have to revert AA as well due to them being tweaked at the same time and how dependent they are on each other to be balanced.

 

The current aircraft hierarchy on CVs really isn't that big of an issue outside of Hiryu's T5 torpedo  bombers seeing T9 AA, and in some cases is crucial to how ships balance around each other (again, see Hiryu - the only reason Ranger isn't completely shafted is because her planes aren't as fragile).  Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan in particular are banking on the newer system for balance - I doubt many Saipan players will be happy if they get left behind by this, and similarly reworking her might also provoke some outrage from the opposite side of the spectrum.  The penalty for martyring planes also needs to stay, otherwise CVs can just mindlessly throw their aircraft away for virtually no consequence past T7.

 

Similarly, the current AA system is what the majority of our ship AA since OBT has been balanced around, and it encourages teamwork by adding a multiplicative bonus to areas covered by overlapping AA auras.  It's not like that doesn't award attentiveness either, because a CV driver that mentally marks those zones of overlap will suffer fewer losses by not flying through there.  Some USN ships might require AA buffs since that change shafted the performance of the 40mm Bofors, but it shouldn't be anything major, as virtually all American ships don't have their ultimate AA armament or the ultimate AA armament among members of their class (exceptions being the Texas and the DDs, along with maybe one or two of the cruisers).

 

I'm also hesitant on the removal of strafe.  The American strafe is stupid beyond belief: it will wipe any same-tier squadron off the map from any angle (except perhaps if you're in a Saipan without Air Supremacy).  But the Japanese strafe, while still given the ability to cause more damage than ordinarily possible in the same time span to enemy squadrons, requires you to attack from a similar trajectory in order to achieve maximum results.  Do it from the front and you'll take out 2, 3 planes at most, even with Air Supremacy boosting your strafe damage output.  Many cross-country matchups also became more fair with the implementation of strafe (namely Hosho vs. Langley, but also Bogue vs. Zuiho, Independence vs. Ryujo, Ranger vs. Hiryu, and Lexington vs. Shokaku to an extent), as American fighters steamrolled the Japanese squadrons unless you swarmed them with multiple of your own.

 

Strafe is far from perfect though.  Making it cost ammo as a percentage of your total (and having its damage output be based on ammo consumed) instead of a fixed amount like it is currently would go a ways towards balancing it between nations.  More importantly, strafe-to-break-lock, while a good idea, merely fixed a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place: fighter lock.  This mechanic gives a bone to AS CVs, but with just strafe and no lock there could be just as if not a greater reward, plus it makes it harder to snipe an AS CV (which, admittedly, is a viable strategy but encourages people to take the easy way out by sniping instead of learning to deal with fighters).

 

The biggest reason I oppose this, though, is because a complete rollback would remove any arming distance on air-dropped torpedoes.  That doesn't need to happen, period: manual-drops are still difficult to deal with, as any counter-tactics bank on the CV making a mistake rather than you playing well.  And in particular, if we're going to see a return to 1/2/2 Midway and Essex, a point-blank crossdrop of 12 American torpedoes needs to not be as easy to set up as it was in CBT and OBT.


Edited by TenguBlade, 19 May 2017 - 09:37 PM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Airacobra #7 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:23 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 11
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
A very decent proposal.

Big_Spud #8 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:33 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,349
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Or, instead of reverting the current broken mechanics back to the old broken mechanics, they can scrap the whole thing and start over again.

 

 

Who am I kidding, they've dug their own grave with how they chose to implement CV's. At this point they literally cannot make any massive changes without the entire game coming crashing down around them.


.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

DokturProfesur #9 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,767
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostBig_Spud, on 19 May 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Or, instead of reverting the current broken mechanics back to the old broken mechanics, they can scrap the whole thing and start over again.

 

 

Who am I kidding, they've dug their own grave with how they chose to implement CV's. At this point they literally cannot make any massive changes without the entire game coming crashing down around them.

 

Since I can't upvote any more today I'll just do this.


 

As a pretty strict BB player since beta, I would like to point out that I think torpedos are fine, HE damage is fine -fire chance and/or fire damage notwithstanding-, carriers are fine, and generally cruiser RoF is fine.

 

My tendency to think my team will follow me into the jaws of glory, however, is what's wrong.


TalonV #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:38 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,502
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBig_Spud, on 19 May 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Or, instead of reverting the current broken mechanics back to the old broken mechanics, they can scrap the whole thing and start over again.

 

 

Who am I kidding, they've dug their own grave with how they chose to implement CV's. At this point they literally cannot make any massive changes without the entire game coming crashing down around them.

View PostDokturProfesur, on 19 May 2017 - 04:36 PM, said:

 

Since I can't upvote any more today I'll just do this.

 

Got ya covered.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:40 PM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 12,036
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View PostBig_Spud, on 19 May 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Or, instead of reverting the current broken mechanics back to the old broken mechanics, they can scrap the whole thing and start over again.

 

 

Who am I kidding, they've dug their own grave with how they chose to implement CV's. At this point they literally cannot make any massive changes without the entire game coming crashing down around them.

 


 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


Peregrinas #12 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:50 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,748
  • Member since:
    05-16-2015

View PostTenguBlade, on 19 May 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

Disagree with this on multiple accounts.  Firstly, the reverting of CVs to their state at the start of OBT means the return of tier-for-tier aircraft upgrades and a reversion to the older AA damage model.  I understand that you said to keep AA as it is, but if you revert the aircraft hierarchy, you have to revert AA as well due to them being tweaked at the same time and how dependent they are on each other to be balanced.

 

The current aircraft hierarchy on CVs really isn't that big of an issue outside of Hiryu's T5 torpedo  bombers seeing T9 AA, and in some cases is crucial to how ships balance around each other (again, see Hiryu - the only reason Ranger isn't completely shafted is because her planes aren't as fragile).  Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan in particular are banking on the newer system for balance - I doubt many Saipan players will be happy if they get left behind by this, and similarly reworking her might also provoke some outrage from the opposite side of the spectrum.  The penalty for martyring planes also needs to stay, otherwise CVs can just mindlessly throw their aircraft away for virtually no consequence past T7.

 

Similarly, the current AA system is what the majority of our ship AA since OBT has been balanced around, and it encourages teamwork by adding a multiplicative bonus to areas covered by overlapping AA auras.  It's not like that doesn't award attentiveness either, because a CV driver that mentally marks those zones of overlap will suffer fewer losses by not flying through there.  Some USN ships might require AA buffs since that change shafted the performance of the 40mm Bofors, but it shouldn't be anything major, as virtually all American ships don't have their ultimate AA armament or the ultimate AA armament among members of their class (exceptions being the Texas and the DDs, along with maybe one or two of the cruisers).

 

I'm also hesitant on the removal of strafe.  The American strafe is stupid beyond belief: it will wipe any same-tier squadron off the map from any angle (except perhaps if you're in a Saipan without Air Supremacy).  But the Japanese strafe, while still given the ability to cause more damage than ordinarily possible in the same time span to enemy squadrons, requires you to attack from a similar trajectory in order to achieve maximum results.  Do it from the front and you'll take out 2, 3 planes at most, even with Air Supremacy boosting your strafe damage output.  Many cross-country matchups also became more fair with the implementation of strafe (namely Hosho vs. Langley, but also Bogue vs. Zuiho, Independence vs. Ryujo, Ranger vs. Hiryu, and Lexington vs. Shokaku to an extent), as American fighters steamrolled the Japanese squadrons unless you swarmed them with multiple of your own.

 

Strafe is far from perfect though.  Making it cost ammo as a percentage of your total (and having its damage output be based on ammo consumed) instead of a fixed amount like it is currently would go a ways towards balancing it between nations.  More importantly, strafe-to-break-lock, while a good idea, merely fixed a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place: fighter lock.  This mechanic gives a bone to AS CVs, but with just strafe and no lock there could be just as if not a greater reward, plus it makes it harder to snipe an AS CV (which, admittedly, is a viable strategy but encourages people to take the easy way out by sniping instead of learning to deal with fighters).

 

The biggest reason I oppose this, though, is because a complete rollback would remove any arming distance on air-dropped torpedoes.  That doesn't need to happen, period: manual-drops are still difficult to deal with, as any counter-tactics bank on the CV making a mistake rather than you playing well.  And in particular, if we're going to see a return to 1/2/2 Midway and Essex, a point-blank crossdrop of 12 American torpedoes needs to not be as easy to set up as it was in CBT and OBT.

 

Some valid points. I forgot about the AA weaponry normalization, but I believe that most ships in general got better because of it. Also, we had Manual AA as a skill introduced which places an emphasis on DP guns.

 

You say that strafe helped Hosho v Langley and Zuiho v Bogue, but WG did just recently remove all manual attacks from these CVs. And I am in agreement with their justification that players experienced enough to use strafe in these ships could absolutely demolish (seal-club) new and starting CV players. Keep in mind that while strafe could help Hosho and Zuiho, it is a double edged sword and a Langley or Bogue could also use strafe in return to further increase the gap in air supremacy.

 

Lastly, you mention that torpedoes had no arm distance. I personally do not remember any time without a minimum arm distance on torpedoes, and I became a CV main shortly after OBT when I unlocked Langley. And my arguments for 1/2/2 Essex and Midway include the fact that AA has been buffed since the removal of those loadouts and that AA clusters plus DF for the panic mechanic turn a 12 TB wave into 3-6 torpedo hits at best. Yes, a lone ship will get absolutely demolished but how is this any different to a German cruiser catching a DD in its smoke with hydro in a 1v1?



TalonV #13 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:59 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,502
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

 

Some valid points. I forgot about the AA weaponry normalization, but I believe that most ships in general got better because of it. Also, we had Manual AA as a skill introduced which places an emphasis on DP guns.

 

You say that strafe helped Hosho v Langley and Zuiho v Bogue, but WG did just recently remove all manual attacks from these CVs. And I am in agreement with their justification that players experienced enough to use strafe in these ships could absolutely demolish (seal-club) new and starting CV players. Keep in mind that while strafe could help Hosho and Zuiho, it is a double edged sword and a Langley or Bogue could also use strafe in return to further increase the gap in air supremacy.

 

Lastly, you mention that torpedoes had no arm distance. I personally do not remember any time without a minimum arm distance on torpedoes, and I became a CV main shortly after OBT when I unlocked Langley. And my arguments for 1/2/2 Essex and Midway include the fact that AA has been buffed since the removal of those loadouts and that AA clusters plus DF for the panic mechanic turn a 12 TB wave into 3-6 torpedo hits at best. Yes, a lone ship will get absolutely demolished but how is this any different to a German cruiser catching a DD in its smoke with hydro in a 1v1?

 

Yeah well I still think 12 TBs in the sky at the same time is all sorts of asnine. And why the IJN got to keep that is beyond asinine.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


DokturProfesur #14 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,767
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostTalonV, on 19 May 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

Yeah well I still think 12 TBs in the sky at the same time is all sorts of asnine. And why the IJN got to keep that is beyond asinine.

 

N-national flavor?

 

As a pretty strict BB player since beta, I would like to point out that I think torpedos are fine, HE damage is fine -fire chance and/or fire damage notwithstanding-, carriers are fine, and generally cruiser RoF is fine.

 

My tendency to think my team will follow me into the jaws of glory, however, is what's wrong.


Peregrinas #15 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:02 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,748
  • Member since:
    05-16-2015

View PostTalonV, on 19 May 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

 

Yeah well I still think 12 TBs in the sky at the same time is all sorts of asnine. And why the IJN got to keep that is beyond asinine.

 

So how would you feel about tightening the dispersion on USN dive bombers if you don't want Essex/Midway to get their second TB squad back?

Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #16 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:02 PM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 12,036
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View PostTalonV, on 19 May 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

Yeah well I still think 12 TBs in the sky at the same time is all sorts of asnine. And why the IJN got to keep that is beyond asinine.

 

Wow it's almost like all the best solutions for inter-class balance with carriers all somehow involve squadron normalization so all lines have the same number of squadrons with the same number of planes in them, and insist on national flavor in other ways that don't make one line blatantly stronger than another.

 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


Madwolf05 #17 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:03 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 3,943
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDokturProfesur, on 19 May 2017 - 05:00 PM, said:

 

N-national flavor?

 

Right?

 

I just think someone forgot to tell War Gaming that there should be balance, and not have one side be crap at a tier, and the other be the bees knees. 


Check out my Twitch Channel: HERE

 

CPU: Intel i7 3770K, MB: ASUS Maximus V, RAM: 16GB, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7900


Madwolf05 #18 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:03 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 3,943
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 19 May 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

 

Wow it's almost like all the best solutions for inter-class balance with carriers all somehow involve squadron normalization so all lines have the same number of squadrons with the same number of planes in them, and insist on national flavor in other ways that don't make one line blatantly stronger than another.

 

Stop it with these radical ideas! That's just too much man!

Check out my Twitch Channel: HERE

 

CPU: Intel i7 3770K, MB: ASUS Maximus V, RAM: 16GB, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7900


TalonV #19 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:05 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,502
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

 

So how would you feel about tightening the dispersion on USN dive bombers if you don't want Essex/Midway to get their second TB squad back?

 

Should of been tightened long ago.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


DokturProfesur #20 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,767
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 19 May 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

 

Wow it's almost like all the best solutions for inter-class balance with carriers all somehow involve squadron normalization so all lines have the same number of squadrons with the same number of planes in them, and insist on national flavor in other ways that don't make one line blatantly stronger than another.

 

View PostMadwolf05, on 19 May 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

Stop it with these radical ideas! That's just too much man!

 

I always thought that IJN planes would be fast and USN planes would be very durable, and carrier loadouts would be customized by the player instead of predetermined choices.

 

As a pretty strict BB player since beta, I would like to point out that I think torpedos are fine, HE damage is fine -fire chance and/or fire damage notwithstanding-, carriers are fine, and generally cruiser RoF is fine.

 

My tendency to think my team will follow me into the jaws of glory, however, is what's wrong.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users