Jump to content

19501

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4994
  • Clan

    [FNV]

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About 19501

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. To be fair, they do that already. At least this would give CVs a reason to humor them.
  2. Hello, & here is this week's idea for "How to improve CV play". CV interaction with the game right now has one major problem: As each match goes on, ships lose their AA to damage & are split up as ships (often the lightly-armored AA cruisers) are sunk. This means that especially at the end of the match, any half-competent CV player can range all over the map where he wants and sink any target he feels like. Terrain isn't a problem (planes can magically climb like MiG interceptors on crack), and AA bubbles have shrunk so much after the CV rework that it's really not hard to simply fly around them. How to fix this? Add something which 'builds up' over the course of a match, and which a CV player will have to work around. I personally suggest overhauling Patrol Fighters in the following way: 1) Limit the ability of Patrol Fighters to spot ships: Either remove it completely, or let them *only* spot surface ships which are actively shooting at the Fighters. 2) Remove the time limit on Patrol Fighters. Once a squadron of Fighters is deployed, it stays until they are a) shot down, b) shoot down enemy planes, or c) the match ends. 3) Remove the consumable limit on Patrol Fighters: a CV can deploy as many squadrons of them as they want, limited only by the cooldown. This way, at the start of a match CVs can fly wherever they want, with little interruption. But any CV player with enough brains to press 'T' every ~60 seconds will slowly build up a pattern of 'no-fly zones' around the map, which the opposing CV will either lose planes to or be forced to deploy their own Patrol Fighters to intercept/distract from the strike craft. The CV players get to feel that they are doing something difficult (flying around a maze of dangers), while the completely AI-driven nature of Fighter-v-Fighter combat should remove much of the skill-gap problem that was there pre-CV-rework. Meanwhile, surface ships benefit from that CVs now have an incentive to drop fighters over their allies (they're free Air-to-Air-Kill ribbons, after all) now that the Patrol Fighters aren't a limited supply needed for spotting. Surface ships also benefit from the enemy CV having to concentrate on dodging Fighter patrol zones while lining up a strike. All ships benefit from having more AA-kill ribbons available. And (perhaps most importanly) WG benefits from having to make no major changes in the game code (all systems used are already in the game), so they can show the community that they are 'improving CV-ship interaction' without having to do much at all. Downsides: 1) Server load. I'm not sure how much Patrol Fighters slow the server, but it shouldn't be *that* much. They move in a predictable pattern at constant speed, until interacted with. 2) It *might* be confusing for the really rock-bottom CV players. It may be worth having a squadron of Patrol Fighters deploy automatically every ~60-90 seconds, with the 'manual activation' squad only arriving when actively summoned by the player. This would reduce some of the workload for less-capable CV players (they don't have to press 1 button every ~60s), and possibly reduce some frustration (with having a 'manual' flight of fighters ready every now and then for when you *have* to dive through enemy Patrol Fighters). Thoughts? I've pretty much given up on playing CVs since the rework; not so much because of how powerful they are as that they're so *boring*. You can fly anywhere on the map at almost any time, with the only limitation on that ever being 'it takes a few seconds that you could spend instead bee-lining from your CV to the nearest target ship.'
  3. Man, it's been a while since I saw a forum complaint about DDs. Ever since the CV rework, they've taken over all the salt-farming, I guess. At any rate, no, DDs are quite balanced right now. They could do with a *bit* of help against CVs, but that's about it. Judging by the class-play-division earlier in this thread, it looks like you haven't played DDs that much (or at all). I strongly suggest that you try them - not only will it show you how difficult it is to be an effective DD, but it will also give you a sense for how to beat enemy DDs more easily.
  4. ^ A better US comparison might be "USS Columbia," which was an older & more poetic term used for the USA. Quite analogous to 'Yamato,' actually.
  5. Exactly. Nobody with a WR above 2 digits would consider hydro on a GK to be 'counterplay,' even though it acts much like AA does against CVs.
  6. For those who consider AA (any amount of AA which does not stop an attack cold, but merely depletes planes) to be 'counterplay,' I have a question: Do you also consider GK's hydro to be 'counterplay' against DDs? It certainly helps mitigate the damage that a GK takes, but that BB is rarely maneuverable enough to actually dodge *all* damage. Certainly this means that GK would be a fun & balanced ship to take in a 1v1 solo fight on a flank against a Shimakaze, no? As someone who greatly enjoyed playing RTS CVs way back when, I'm not in the "Remove CVs" camp. But CVs as they are now are frankly unfun to play against *and* unfun to play as. There are many changes/tweaks that could be tried that would make defending against a CV fun without ruining the game for CV players, but WG has quite bluntly stated that they are not interested in those (for reasons that make sense from a short-term business perspective).
  7. 19501

    A incentive for DD’s to live longer than 5 minutes

    I mean, there already *is* an incentive to stay alive as a DD: your effectiveness increases almost exponentially as the match progresses. So I honestly doubt that the current players who yolorush and die ~2 minutes into the match will change their behavior even with more direct incentives being given. Unfortunately, it seems that we must resign ourselves to the fact that most DDs (and usually especially those one one's own team, it seems) will be dead within minutes of the match beginning.
  8. 19501

    When Is Smolensk Nerfed?

    To be fair, if IFHE ever gets balanced, then Smolensk might end up right about where it should be. Barring that, removing its Hydro would at least make it take some skill to play well, instead of smoke + win. (Yes, players with at least a room-temperature IQ can already do fairly well versus Smol in smoke. But those players are very rare in WoWS.)
  9. 19501

    AA since 8.5

    Honestly, I'd be okay with the change...only if two changes were implemented: 1) Buff XP/cred rewards for spotting damage. If my CV can't really go in on attack runs constantly anymore, at least let me earn some actual reward for sitting my 1-2 plane squadrons outside of flak range and keeping the enemy AA blob spotted for minutes at a time. 2) Give CVs a specific display over every enemy warship telling the CV player what the remaining DPS of the enemy's 3 AA suites are. That is, what is their Long, Medium, and Short-range DPS now, so that CVs can make on-the-fly (hah!) decisions as to which target to strike.
  10. 19501

    A proposed new direction for the CV rework.

    I'll cast my support for all the points made by OP (incidentally, that avatar gif is making my neck hurt). I have little CV experience in WoWS (and almost none since CBT), but I do fondly remember my CV-whoring days from NavyField way back when, and I think that it can offer two important points: 1) Fuel limits on aircraft are very good for removing a CV's ability to 'be everywhere' on the map. Give aircraft enough fuel to make it across most (say, ~80%) of the map and turn back without striking, or ~60% of the map counting maneuvers needed to get munitions on target. Give fighters a bit more fuel. That makes it much easier for a CV to defend with their own fighters (red-team fighters couldn't easily go hunting down blue-team fighters for air superiority, but would still be useful for escorting in strike packages), while also making it difficult for CVs to keep ships permaspotted. It also provides an incentive for CVs to get closer to the action, although that would likely require a buff to CV concealment. To make things palatable for the potatoes, just go with having an out-of-fuel squadron be forced to RTB. 2) There's essentially no reason to 'main' AA ships in the game, as it stands now. The rewards (bxp and/or creds) for shooting down a plane are small and are not made obvious. Make it so that downing planes is a great way to farm credits, but not xp (ship or captain), and give people an incentive to play their AA-capable ships as AA vessels first and gunships second. The game as it is has plenty of counters to CV dominance, but there's no incentive for anyone to ever actually try to specifically counter aircraft other than keeping their own ship alive.
×