Jump to content

CaptainBadger

In AlfaTesters
  • Content Сount

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10994
  • Clan

    [IND8]

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About CaptainBadger

  • Rank
    Seaman Recruit
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. CaptainBadger

    CV Rework support Clan.

    I am similarly interested in a clan such as this, especially considering most clans out there are generally narrow-minded, toxic beyond belief, and wholly unpleasant to deal with.
  2. CaptainBadger

    Possible improvements to the Carrier Rework

    The difference here is that I'm not asking for Wargaming to incorporate dynamic elevation control, just the illusion of elevation by having each squadron inhabit their own altitude "level". It keeps things simple for them and for the average joe who may not have the time to learn all the little nuances of the game.
  3. Idea summary: The following are a series of ideas and proposals to the Wargaming development team regarding changes to Aircraft Carriers and possible ideas for Escort Carriers as a class. Please keep in mind that these changes are coming from players of the game who both do and do not consider aircraft carriers to be their main choice of ship, but both regret the place CV’s are in at the moment. We earnestly believe that Carriers can synergize far better with surface ships (and vice-versa) than they currently do while also making Carriers more interesting to play and feel like less of a slog through endless walls of flak and tracers, and we think that these changes would accomplish this without changing the Carrier gameplay too much. Please keep in mind that this proposal is NOT meant to be a direct “buff” to Carriers or Surface ships, but instead a way to improve the Carrier/Surface ship interaction as a whole. Proposed Aircraft Carrier (CV) changes: IMPORTANT NOTE: These changes are meant to ONLY affect tiers VI, VIII, and X due to how those tiers of Carriers routinely suffer from overwhelming AA power creep and players, most notably newer players, often suffer from a perpetual impression that they’re beating their heads against a brick wall made of flak explosions and pain; furthermore, these changes are meant to provide an incentive to play higher-tiered Carriers since they currently feel very flat and uninteresting with how their gameplay doesn’t change hardly at all compared to surface ships or between their own tiers. By doing this, Tier IV Carriers could still function as an introduction to the class for new players before introducing a slight upgrade in gameplay with Tier VI, VIII, and X Carriers. Carrier squadrons would be changed to operate at three different “levels” comprising of High, Medium, and Low altitudes, with each altitude being visibly different from each other, please note that there would be no ability to dynamically transition between altitudes in order to retain simplicity for all players. Dive bombers would function exclusively at high altitude, attack planes would be at medium altitude, and torpedo bombers would skim at low altitude. By making these relatively minor changes, WoWs could achieve a greater depth of gameplay (and therefore more a more interesting experience that allows for greater retention of players) for Carriers and allow for a more dynamic interaction between the Carriers and other surface warships. These changes are also being proposed as a way to make Carrier progression less painful for players who are uptiered in ships whose aircraft may lack any real survivability (namely the Tier VI/VIII uptiering dilemma where Carriers from either Tier often feel utterly impotent in the face of Anti-Air that’s capable of atomizing squadrons in literally seconds) while keeping it fair for the players in conventional warships. This suggested altitude functionality change would operate as follows (summary at the end of each part): • High Altitude – Arguably the most drastic (relatively speaking) change in this proposal; at high altitude, only large/medium-caliber Anti-Aircraft weaponry, such as rifles of over 85mm’s or heavy-duty anti-air like the 40mm Bofors, would be able to engage aircraft with reduced accuracy. This would be shown by flak bursts and tracer fire being more random and at slightly varying altitudes from the squadron flight path and reduce instances of aircraft having to fly around flak bursts on a virtually flat plane just to survive, but would combine reduced continuous damage with aesthetic flak bursts that can also damage should aircraft fly through them (exactly as they do now). Due to their altitude, small-caliber Anti-Aircraft weaponry, such as 20mm Anti-Aircraft guns, would be completely unable to fire at Dive bombers so long as they remain at cruising altitude. It’s important to note that while Dive bombers would not take as much damage on the approach to a target thanks to the reduced continuous damage and reduced flak accuracy (which would thus alleviate the frequent impression that Carrier gameplay, for Dive bombers at least, is little more than dodging undodgeable flak walls and watching your squadrons be inexorably worn down despite your best efforts), this would be made up for during the aircrafts’ attack run, during which time they would encounter progressively heavier defensive fire from all calibers of Anti-Air. As a balancing measure and a way to compensate for the reduction in effective Anti-Aircraft fire while at cruising altitude, dive bombers would lose roughly 25-40% of their total maneuverability and would initially be much less accurate when entering a bombing run. However, Dive bombers’ individual bomb damage would be increased by 20-30% to compensate for the reduced accuracy and time it takes for them to climb back to altitude, which would take roughly 10-20 seconds depending on the altitude (medium or low) they drop their bombs at. As they dive from high altitude, their accuracy would exponentially increase the closer they get to the end of their dive, exactly as it does already, but with less final accuracy than Dive bombers currently have in the game. This progression through the “layers” of altitude would, as stated earlier, see them receive fire from all calibers of Anti-Air, therefore incentivizing players to drop their bombs sooner, and therefore give the surface ship more of an opportunity to dodge said bombs should RNG permit it, if they don’t want to take more damage. Furthermore, there would be no rollout phase and the bombers would end their attack just as they start to pull up instead of when they’re already leveling out over the target reticule. Finally, instead of performing a “stall maneuver” upon initiating a diving attack, which blocks player view and can cause motion sickness, the aircraft would instead simply pitch forward, very much like how the Graf Zeppelin’s Dive bombers initiate their attack. Alternatively, the aircraft could do a corkscrewing aileron roll into a dive and begin the run that way in order to allow the player to maintain visual on their target. Depending on when they finish their attack (drop their bombs), Dive bombers would level out at either Low or Medium altitude and continue flying with a temporary speed boost, exactly as they do already, and would not immediately climb back up to high altitude. Alternatively, the rest of the squadron could remain at High altitude (which would make more sense) and have to take that time to instead reposition for its next attack run. Either way, this would make positioning, planning, and accuracy paramount to success, and allow ships to truly dodge Dive bomber attacks...therefore making the gameplay more engaging...since a frequent complaint seen among the playerbase is that active maneuvering does nothing to dodge Dive bomber attacks. With regards to the British Carriers, their carpet bombers would also fly at High altitude, but upon entering an attack run, instead go into a shallow dive that increases air speed while increasing accuracy at roughly half the rate of a diving attack by typical Dive bombers. The downside to this is that British bombers would suffer more flak damage due to their horizontal attack pattern over a target. This would serve to maintain their unique aspects and allow for the theme of greater survivability since their bombers would approach and exit the target area at a higher horizontal speed than typical Dive bombers, exactly as they do already. To summarize, the changes to Dive bombers would involve: 1: Improving quality of life for Carrier players by: A: Slightly reducing the damage taken until they enter an attack run. B: Giving the Carrier player the choice of how much damage they want to take. C: Making individual bomb strikes more rewarding. D: Making Anti-Air less aggravating and giving newer players a chance to plan. E: Giving the Dive bomber squadron a more unique playstyle. F: Reducing or eliminating instances of “flak walls” decimating squadrons. 2: Improving quality of life for surface ship players by: A: Making active evasion actually matter. B: Making aircraft “less annoying” by reducing number of bomb hits. C: Giving players more time to evade incoming attack runs. D: Rendering the “Slingshot maneuver” obsolete. E: Preventing Dive bombers from too-easily countering maneuvers. • Medium Altitude – Medium altitude would not mechanically change in any way, but Attack aircraft would preside at this altitude and their functionality would be changed slightly to assist them in better surviving having all calibers of Anti-Aircraft fire used against them. The only proposed change to Attack aircraft is that their engine boost recharge (which honestly is rather pointless considering how fast their boost recharges) be replaced with a “juke” or "evade" ability, which would better fit their role as rocket-armed fighters by having them bob and weave to avoid Anti-Air fire for a short time. The reasoning behind this change, beside what’s already been said, has to do with making it fair for Carrier players who might find themselves or pitted against a great number of ships with good AA by allowing them to temporarily mitigate (NOT eliminate) continuous and flak AA damage while preventing them from entering an attack run. This ability would be a logical shift for the attack planes since they’re simply fighter aircraft with rockets mounted to them, and therefore only slightly less maneuverable than they would be without rockets strapped on to them. (TINY TIM ROCKETS: The Tiny Tim rockets are the only alternative aircraft armament we have at this time, and yet they totally lack any distinguishing features to them other than more penetration and damage for fewer rockets. A possible change would be to make them more accurate. The reasoning behind this for both historical context and balance. The Tiny Tim was known for flying very fast and very straight due to its high weight and powerful motor, often hitting a target with excellent accuracy, so it would make sense that the rockets in-game be changed to reflect this by making the reticule during attack runs instead three separate reticules, each representing an individual rocket-armed aircraft, with an extremely small aiming radius when fully aimed. The end effect of this would be to make the rockets less viable against smaller ships (owing to their high accuracy when trying to hit a small target like a Destroyer) and more viable against larger ships, which would thus make HVARs more viable for the Carrier player who wants a reliable way to engage Destroyers. To summarize, the changes to Attack planes would involve: 1: Improving quality of life for Carrier players by: A: Improving survivability of Attack planes while balancing that with no ability to attack. B: Reducing the effect of AA power creep with an ability unique to attack planes. C: Changing Tiny Tim’s to be better for larger ships instead of anti-everything. D: Keeping Attack planes essentially the same except for enhanced survivability. 2: Improving quality of life for surface ship players by: A: Preventing Attack planes from entering an attack run while using AA survival ability. B: Encouraging Carrier players to think more about rocket choice with Tiny Tim change. C: Keeping Attack planes essentially the same save for enhanced survivability. • Low Altitude – Like High altitude, low altitude would have an effect on enemy Anti-Aircraft fire, with the main changes being that large-caliber Anti-Aircraft that fires primarily flak, such as dual-purpose Destroyer main battery guns, would not fire at Torpedo bombers due to their extremely low altitude. As a balancing factor, the bombers would take 20-25% increased damage from small/medium caliber fire such as 20mm and 40mm Anti-Aircraft guns that fire purely bullets. Additionally, Torpedo bombers’ speed would be reduced 10-25% to balance them not receiving long range AA fire, though the final number would be a verdict of balancing in-game. In compensation, Torpedo bombers would receive better concealment of 8 kilometers by default due to their lower altitude, therefore allowing Carrier players to attempt stealthier play with the squadron if they want, though the lower altitude would also mean that Torpedo bombers have less visibility to find their own targets. Another small change for all aircraft that would help balance out AA vs aircraft would be to split continuous AA damage 50-50% between a single plane and random aircraft in the entire squadron, this would especially help to make the torpedo bomber repair ability more relevant while also making AA damage more logical and less of an inevitable slog through an AA grinder for the other squadrons. To summarize, the changes to Torpedo bombers would involve: 1: Improving quality of life for Carrier players by: A: Allowing Carrier players to choose when to take damage by reducing detection range. B: Allowing Carrier players to play with an element of stealth. C: Reducing or eliminating instances of “flak walls” decimating squadrons. D: Feeling really cool to fly nape-to-the-earth by default. 2: Improving quality of life for surface ship players by: A: Increasing AA damage so that Torpedo bombers die faster when spotted. B: Slowing torpedo attack runs. ESCORT CARRIERS: Escort carriers would exist as a split-off branch, in the same vein as American Light/Heavy Cruisers or Japanese Destroyers. Aircraft “weapon” ideas/requests: Smoke drop: Most likely in a rectangular “wall” or “line” of smoke, these bomblets would be dropped from aircraft as a way of shielding friendly ships and supporting the team. This idea would have two parts to it as explained in the description for sono-buoys. Sono-buoys: This weapon would actually merge with the Smoke Drop idea in that the bombers that drop the smoke would simultaneously drop sonar buoys that would detect subs in a radius between 2-5KM around the buoy. These buoys would last for approximately 40-60 seconds before running out of battery power, and the idea is to allow an escort Carrier to support the team in Anti-Submarine Warfare operations so they’re not totally reliant on Destroyers for that task. (ALTERNATIVE IDEA: These bombers could instead drop a form of “dirty fire bomb” which, if dropped on enemy ships, would start fires on any ship in the drop area while simultaneously forming a sort of “dirty smoke screen” made up of black smoke instead of white smoke; think the kind of smoke caused by a burning oil slick on the water. This screen would function like a smoke screen and shield ships from view, though they would not cause damage or start fires if they sail into the bombs’ area of effect once dropped. This would allow escort Carriers to assist allies while also doing damage, albeit at a much-reduced rate compared to regular Carriers. Influence mines: When dropped from aircraft in an area, these mines would take 30 seconds to arm before they would do any damage when hit, at which point they would function very much like the minefields in the “Dunkirk” event. These mines would last for 2-3 minutes before running out of battery (despawning). They would hit any ships that actually strike the mines in the field; submarines could dive and pass under the mines provided they see and react to them in time. Fighters: The final support ability would be a return of the old fighters, but minus the “strafing run” ability that made them such a pain in the old RTS Carriers, and their main weapons would be the guns on the fighters, not rockets. These aircraft could be incredibly versatile tools for an escort Carrier, allowing the player to protect friendly ships, shoot down aircraft, or strafe ships (which would then temporarily disable or destroy any open-air AA and secondaries or suppress their function by approximately 50% for an undetermined amount of time). Miscellaneous request: 1: We request that the old shell bounce audio from the Beta and earlier versions of the game (the hollow “BONG” and “BING” audio that had a very naval feel about it, the “Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts” game coming out has almost exactly the same shell impact audio we’re talking about) be reintroduced to add variety to shell bounce audio, but only for shells fired from guns of 155mm and smaller. We believe that by doing this, the game would have more audio variety instead of a wearing “CRASH” and “BANG” sound that repetitively grinds at the ears and bring back shell audio that serves a double purpose of informing the player what kind of ship is firing Armor Piercing ammunition at them (Light Cruisers and anything lighter) while providing an amusing and engaging audio effect that makes the player feel powerful and capable instead of like they’re just being worn down. @Umbaretz @Femennenly @Gneisenau013 @KARMAT1KA
×