Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SaidNoOneEver

Shower Thought on CV Rework

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles

So I posted this in another thread and I wasn't sure if I would really get much feedback in that thread so I decided to post my shower thought here.  Please let me know what you think!

 

I believe that the reason why people think CVs are overpowered is because of the amount of skills necessary to make them function incredibly well.  I believe that CVs in this game are incredibly polarizing.  They attract either really good players that make make them seem OP or they attract the newcomers to the class.  The problem with the newcomers is that the team can be incredibly critical and harsh towards the CV player.  I believe my clanmates are absolutely right.  CV play is the fastest way to grind karma points and the fastest way to lose those points too because teammates will happily report you for a poor performance.  WG really does have to address this class.  This class is certainly not friendly towards new players.  That skill gap is what makes or breaks a team and it's unfortunate that, more often than not, the rest of the team is at the mercy of whichever CV player MM places your team.

I believe that part of the reason why CVs aren't noob friendly is their interface and how reminiscent it is of RTS games.  Some people don't like that!  I feel that CV play should be like that of other games like Fracture Space where you can see your fighters and bombers ingress towards the target ship and drop their payload and return to your ship....all autonomously.  I feel WG is getting wrapped around the axle with this whole "The gameplay is built around the fighters and bombers." Here are some suggestions, and believe me these have been suggested before....at least some of them have:

1) Instead of allowing the player to control the various squadrons from an overview map area, you make it so that you're looking at the whole map from the spectator's point of view (think the death cam once you've been destroyed).  From this camera view, you can see all the ships across the map that are spotted.  The camera angle and view will be similar to the spotter plane as well and this allows you to pick a target.  Once the CV player has targeted the ship, you send your TBs and DB towards that target.  If the enemy CV has sent fighters to intercept your TBs/DB, you can use a new consumable called "Evasive Action" which acts as an aircraft's Defensive Fire in order to improve their odds of survival while engaged by enemy fighters.  You can send fighters to intercept other fighters or TBs and DBs.  If they need to get there quickly, then can use their consumable called "Push it up!" or something like that that acts like "Speed Boost" for ships.  In other words, the squadrons act a lot more autonomously but as a CV player, it's your job to manage a multitude of consumables that buff your squadrons and debuff the enemy aircraft to improve the survivability of your own squadrons.  I feel that's how other games depict support ships such as a CV style ships; They have several different functions to buff/debuff their autonomous fighters/bombers as they ingress/egress from striking a target.  Finally, there are many CV drivers that would love the option to switch between AP and HE bombs.  You can imagine a keybind similar to Lucio from Overwatch that allows you to freely switch between HE and AP, but that button can only be used while the DBs are reloading/rearming back at the carrier.  If WG wanted, they can even add a slight penalty time for the rearming period to symbolize the aircraft that are downloading the previous munition type for the new munition type.  

2) Instead of a fighter/TB/DB aircraft reserve system, we can have a pilot reserve!  Why the pilot reserve system?  Because in WWII it was almost never a shortage of aircraft, it was a shortage of well trained pilots to actually crew the aircraft that was the biggest limiting factor.  WG can still keep the CV loadouts as is and every time either fighter or TB or DB squadrons are lost, they are replaced with new pilots.  This actually gives CVs the freedom from fear of losing an X amount of fighter/TB/DB squadrons and instead puts emphasis on more conservative gameplay since it will be the pilot reserves that becomes the issue.  Similar to how it's modeled in-game, the higher tiered CVs actually will have larger pilot reserves.  Finally, my reason for this change is because pilots were seen in WWII as a precious resource.  You can even modify this to reflect fighter pilots versus bomber pilots.  Lets be honest.  Bomber pilots specialized in dropping both torpedoes and bombs while fighter pilots were specially trained for air to air combat.  I think this change could reflect that.

 

3) NO MORE RNG.  No longer should AA ratings of ships have to take rolls against squadrons.  If you have AA values for short, medium, and long range AA, then you are doing that said amount of damage in DPS to an enemy squadron.  Each squadron will have a total value, but depending on the sizes of squadrons, at every fractional value they lose an aircraft in that squadron.  For example, if a squadron has 4 aircraft in that squadron, when the squadron reaches 75% HP, they lose an aircraft; and at 50% they would have lost 2 aircraft.  

 

4) Make all aircraft across the board faster.  This will aid in faster reloads/rearming.  Also, this change is contingent on WG NOT going with the changes in my first point.  Faster aircraft will at least give the illusion that the UI is more responsive than it is right now.

Anyway, these are just some of the changes that I was thinking about.  Call it a shower thought.

Spears?  I don't want people to just critique my idea.  Please, if you have a thought on how you would change my idea, do so in a way that's at least constructive and perhaps even more efficient!  I look forward to what others have to say on this....

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,584
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles

Dude, you don't get to dictate forum rules on how people respond to your posts.  If they just want to criticize, then they're free to criticize, whether you like it or not.  Deal with it.

As for #3, no more RNG, dream on.  A big reason for RNG is to create uncertainty and so that things don't turn out exactly the same time after time.  Not going to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles
57 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

I believe that the reason why people think CVs are overpowered is because of the amount of skills necessary to make them function incredibly well.  I believe that CVs in this game are incredibly polarizing.  They attract either really good players that make make them seem OP or they attract the newcomers to the class.  The problem with the newcomers is that the team can be incredibly critical and harsh towards the CV player.  I believe my clanmates are absolutely right.  CV play is the fastest way to grind karma points and the fastest way to lose those points too because teammates will happily report you for a poor performance.  WG really does have to address this class.  This class is certainly not friendly towards new players.  That skill gap is what makes or breaks a team and it's unfortunate that, more often than not, the rest of the team is at the mercy of whichever CV player MM places your team.

I believe that part of the reason why CVs aren't noob friendly is their interface and how reminiscent it is of RTS games.  Some people don't like that!  I feel that CV play should be like that of other games like Fracture Space where you can see your fighters and bombers ingress towards the target ship and drop their payload and return to your ship....all autonomously.  I feel WG is getting wrapped around the axle with this whole "The gameplay is built around the fighters and bombers." Here are some suggestions, and believe me these have been suggested before....at least some of them have:

 

I started playing WOWS for the CVs. I hardly play them not because I don't like them, it's because on how they are implemented in this game. You put any Battle stations series in front of me, and you won't hear from me for a few days.

I'll also say that you are correct about Karma. CVs can make or break the game, and therefore are in constant view of everyone in the battle. It's the only Type that everyone can see what they're doing.

 

57 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

1) Instead of allowing the player to control the various squadrons from an overview map area, you make it so that you're looking at the whole map from the spectator's point of view (think the death cam once you've been destroyed).  From this camera view, you can see all the ships across the map that are spotted.  The camera angle and view will be similar to the spotter plane as well and this allows you to pick a target.  Once the CV player has targeted the ship, you send your TBs and DB towards that target.  If the enemy CV has sent fighters to intercept your TBs/DB, you can use a new consumable called "Evasive Action" which acts as an aircraft's Defensive Fire in order to improve their odds of survival while engaged by enemy fighters.  You can send fighters to intercept other fighters or TBs and DBs.  If they need to get there quickly, then can use their consumable called "Push it up!" or something like that that acts like "Speed Boost" for ships.  In other words, the squadrons act a lot more autonomously but as a CV player, it's your job to manage a multitude of consumables that buff your squadrons and debuff the enemy aircraft to improve the survivability of your own squadrons.  I feel that's how other games depict support ships such as a CV style ships; They have several different functions to buff/debuff their autonomous fighters/bombers as they ingress/egress from striking a target.  Finally, there are many CV drivers that would love the option to switch between AP and HE bombs.  You can imagine a keybind similar to Lucio from Overwatch that allows you to freely switch between HE and AP, but that button can only be used while the DBs are reloading/rearming back at the carrier.  If WG wanted, they can even add a slight penalty time for the rearming period to symbolize the aircraft that are downloading the previous munition type for the new munition type.  
 

Anything is possible here, and these ideas "might" make the game play better. The issue for is we don't have a "sandbox" server where ideas like this can be tested out by all of us. Other games have them, and those games are wildly successful because ideas tested. Less arguing overall because there are stats that show why it works or doesn't. It's just a guess otherwise.

 

57 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

2) Instead of a fighter/TB/DB aircraft reserve system, we can have a pilot reserve!  Why the pilot reserve system?  Because in WWII it was almost never a shortage of aircraft, it was a shortage of well trained pilots to actually crew the aircraft that was the biggest limiting factor.  WG can still keep the CV loadouts as is and every time either fighter or TB or DB squadrons are lost, they are replaced with new pilots.  This actually gives CVs the freedom from fear of losing an X amount of fighter/TB/DB squadrons and instead puts emphasis on more conservative gameplay since it will be the pilot reserves that becomes the issue.  Similar to how it's modeled in-game, the higher tiered CVs actually will have larger pilot reserves.  Finally, my reason for this change is because pilots were seen in WWII as a precious resource.  You can even modify this to reflect fighter pilots versus bomber pilots.  Lets be honest.  Bomber pilots specialized in dropping both torpedoes and bombs while fighter pilots were specially trained for air to air combat.  I think this change could reflect that.

Ultimately, Japan lost the war because of low numbers of quality pilots. They didn't have a program that would rotate out skilled pilots to teach the noobs what they found helpful in the field.

I like this idea if I'm hearing it correctly. Allow the CV the opportunity to have all plane types available, but only allow a certain amount of Pilots per ship.

 

57 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

3) NO MORE RNG.  No longer should AA ratings of ships have to take rolls against squadrons.  If you have AA values for short, medium, and long range AA, then you are doing that said amount of damage in DPS to an enemy squadron.  Each squadron will have a total value, but depending on the sizes of squadrons, at every fractional value they lose an aircraft in that squadron.  For example, if a squadron has 4 aircraft in that squadron, when the squadron reaches 75% HP, they lose an aircraft; and at 50% they would have lost 2 aircraft. 

I don't like RNG in any form really. Give me the ability to make or break myself. That's over the whole game and nothing particularity. RNG though helps Noobs and that i think is what WG wants so they can have more peeps in front of the screens. Still, if that's what they're after, they are doing poorly over the majority of aspects of the game.

 

57 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

4) Make all aircraft across the board faster.  This will aid in faster reloads/rearming.  Also, this change is contingent on WG NOT going with the changes in my first point.  Faster aircraft will at least give the illusion that the UI is more responsive than it is right now.

Not sure about this, but you can mess around a bit with what you have now. The TBs will move faster when they drop their loads. I've seen some players drop them in the middle of no where and scout with them. To my knowledge, fighters can't keep up with them and they can move without being hit if the Captain pays attention to them.

Edited by Wulfgarn
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,356
[O7]
Supertest Coordinator, Supertester
6,387 posts
7,341 battles

1. No

2. No

3. No 

4. No

 

No.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
30 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Dude, you don't get to dictate forum rules on how people respond to your posts.  If they just want to criticize, then they're free to criticize, whether you like it or not.  Deal with it.

As for #3, no more RNG, dream on.  A big reason for RNG is to create uncertainty and so that things don't turn out exactly the same time after time.  Not going to happen.

 


First of all, I'm not dictating forum rules.  You're free to post here.  I'm certainly not restricting people from posting.  It's means you're free to speak your mind...to include being an @$$hole.  Kindness and respect go a long way in establishing rapport with people.  Disrespecting people is perfectly within your right, but I guarantee you it won't be profitable for you in the long run.  With that said, you're not imaginative or creative so I'm within my right to completely forget your comment and could care less about your opinion on this matter.  You're just part of the problem and have removed yourself from being a part of the solution.  That's all I'm trying to do here.  I'm offering suggestions and concepts with the hope that WG will find some more efficient means of balancing CVs and making them more user friendly than they are currently.  My intention was not to restrict people but rather challenge people to do more than what you did.  It's easy to critique.  It's not so easy to critique AND provide a better way.  That's where the creativity comes in and that's what you lack; imagination and creativity.  I'd be all on-board with helping WG improve CV gameplay.  I'm tired of people just critiquing and not coming up with solutions to help resolve WG's dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
3 minutes ago, Bastion_Is_Blight said:
  1. A public forum isn't really the best place for this. 


If you'll notice, in my quote I said "JUST critique."  That means I'd like solutions and not just critiques.  The public forum is a perfect place to create solutions and help WG resolve their CV dilemma.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,584
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
1 hour ago, SaidNoOneEver said:


If you'll notice, in my quote I said "JUST critique."  That means I'd like solutions and not just critiques.  The public forum is a perfect place to create solutions and help WG resolve their CV dilemma.

There's no point in "solutions", since the devs are rather unlikely to use any "solution" from here to fix anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,584
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
1 hour ago, SaidNoOneEver said:


First of all, I'm not dictating forum rules.  You're free to post here.  I'm certainly not restricting people from posting.  It's means you're free to speak your mind...to include being an @$$hole.  Kindness and respect go a long way in establishing rapport with people.  Disrespecting people is perfectly within your right, but I guarantee you it won't be profitable for you in the long run.  With that said, you're not imaginative or creative so I'm within my right to completely forget your comment and could care less about your opinion on this matter.  You're just part of the problem and have removed yourself from being a part of the solution.  That's all I'm trying to do here.  I'm offering suggestions and concepts with the hope that WG will find some more efficient means of balancing CVs and making them more user friendly than they are currently.  My intention was not to restrict people but rather challenge people to do more than what you did.  It's easy to critique.  It's not so easy to critique AND provide a better way.  That's where the creativity comes in and that's what you lack; imagination and creativity.  I'd be all on-board with helping WG improve CV gameplay.  I'm tired of people just critiquing and not coming up with solutions to help resolve WG's dilemma.

Sounds like you're dictating rules to me.  Also, I'm not disrespecting anyone.  And is anyone is being an a-hole here, it's you with your dictates that critiques without solutions are unacceptable.  I gotta tell you, whenever I read a post like that, my first thought is that the OP is an a-hole for thinking that he has the right to dictate how people respond on a public forum.  There are no Marguis of Queensbury rules for forum posting.

Furthermore, I don't think that I'm part of the problem OR part of the solution.  In short, I'm not a dev.

Also, sometimes people don't happen to agree that there is a better way or that a "better way" is even needed.  Therefore, there's no need to come up with a supposed solution where one doesn't see a problem.  That's how I feel about RNG.  To me, RNG is a must have thing in any game like this.  This isn't chess.  And randomness is real.  AA guns are not going to do damage in such a non-random way.  Heck, I wouldn't mind if there was a small degree of randomness in the damage done by gun shells., rather than fixed amounts.  Randomness creates lots of uncertainty, which to my mind is a Good Thing.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[ANIME]
Members
363 posts
9,306 battles
5 hours ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

3) NO MORE RNG.  No longer should AA ratings of ships have to take rolls against squadrons.  If you have AA values for short, medium, and long range AA, then you are doing that said amount of damage in DPS to an enemy squadron.  Each squadron will have a total value, but depending on the sizes of squadrons, at every fractional value they lose an aircraft in that squadron.  For example, if a squadron has 4 aircraft in that squadron, when the squadron reaches 75% HP, they lose an aircraft; and at 50% they would have lost 2 aircraft.  

If we are assuming that AA DPS isn't changed from their current values, then this would be an extreme nerf to CV's.  A stock DM will be almost completely immune.  Just over 420 DPS at 5km means that in 5 seconds, the DM will melt a full squadron of Wakusei's (IJN T10 DB).  The Wakusei with 2030 base HP travels at 161knots and will always be spotted at 8km, meaning that the DM has 19 seconds of reaction time.  Using proportions, the Wakusei is inside the DM AA bubble for about 11 seconds, enough time to kill it twice over.  Add all of the AA mods and capt skills (except MFCAA) and you bump your range out to 7.2 km and you have your DPS at around 500.  This basically means that as long as you are about 6km away from a DM, you are almost guaranteed to be immune since the DM is chunking 1-2 planes guaranteed.  When the DM pops DF, that's going to be almost a full squadron erased in 1 second.  

 

The DM is an extreme AA example.  Other ships would still be extremely powerful.  CV priority targets like BB's are still very strong, the GK has 320 DPS at 5km, the Monty only has 157 DPS but then has 318 at 3.5km, and the Yamato at 120 DPS.  Even thought the Yamato only has 120 DPS at 5km, that is still enough to shoot down 1 plane before the second aura, and then the kill another 1 maybe 2 planes before they drop.  The only ships that aren't wiping full squadrons are DD's, but even then most will still be grabbing at least 1 plane.

 

This is assuming that that the whole squadron is represented by the ingame HP value.  This is the way it currently works, as AA DPS is divided by the ingame HP value to get the percent chance of shoot down then the roll is made.  If we assume that each Wakusei has 2030 HP and the squadron as a whole has 8120 HP, then the results change.  Something like the DM that shot down the entire squadron still shoots down the entire squadron.  Something like the Monty which would previously shoot down the full squadron now still shoots down the full squadron, but only after taking 2 bombs.  This is looks a little closer to what we currently have, but AA is still a little strong.  The Yamato shoots down 1 plane, gets bombed, then shoots down another 2 leaving 1 plane returning to the CV.  The issue with having definite HP pools is that when two ships are together, then AA DPS becomes very strong.  Take two Yamato's who are inline 3km away from each other.  If your squadron of Wakusei's are flying at the bow of the first Yamato, then 2 bombs are dropped and no planes return.  Big deal, big change, but when you start looking at a real game and how many ships are shooting at your planes, it is a big deal.  A DD may only provide 150 DPS total, but flying over a DD to sink a BB will result in a loss of a plane to the DD and however many to the BB.  If a Moskva or even any ship pokes your fighters for even a second, then you will lose the fighter duel.  In your Hosho, if you fly your fighters over a stock Clemson and take that 1DPS for 1 second, your fighters will lose the fighter duel, because of being 1 HP down.

 

The way I see this, it doesn't make a lot of sense without a lot of tweaking.  If you are suggesting something different from what I understand, please tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[GREPT]
[GREPT]
Beta Testers
6,739 posts
7,090 battles
4 hours ago, Crucis said:

Sounds like you're dictating rules to me.  Also, I'm not disrespecting anyone.  And is anyone is being an a-hole here, it's you with your dictates that critiques without solutions are unacceptable.  I gotta tell you, whenever I read a post like that, my first thought is that the OP is an a-hole for thinking that he has the right to dictate how people respond on a public forum. 

 

 

I agree with this entirely, the moment ANYONE says "no ____ my post" then I list them under my "they are a jerk and their opinion is worth less than the dirt" list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
12 hours ago, Raptor_alcor said:

 

I agree with this entirely, the moment ANYONE says "no ____ my post" then I list them under my "they are a jerk and their opinion is worth less than the dirt" list. 


Well you know what they say about people that assume....But how you list people is none of my concern.  If you read my disclaimer, you would see that I was asking people to post more than just "this/these ideas suck."  It's far more constructive to critique and tweek someone's idea instead of outright dismissing it.  If you say "no," then I want to know WHY NOT.  Anyone can simply say "no" like this guy... 
 

17 hours ago, Zakuul said:

1. No

2. No

3. No 

4. No

 

No.

 

Or this guy.....

 

17 hours ago, Bastion_Is_Blight said:
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Finally:

A public forum isn't really the best place for this. 


Not very imaginative.  Just like there was outrage over GZ and IChase being fired, there really should be constant discussion on fixing CVs.  Most people don't even talk about it because they don't play the class.  There are others that have never played the class at all.  Then there are those that call CVs "cancer."  In any case, ALL players are affected by CVs so it behooves people to at least be a part of  the discussion.  If you don't want to be a part of the discussion then fine!  Take your leave.  But when you go so far as to respond to the OPs post and still leave only negative responses such as "no." Then the discussion will never be productive.  I'm not going to police my own thread, but I'm merely trying to get the discussion started like many others before me.  WG has not done anything really to improve CV gameplay.  That's a shame.  I feel that there's not enough outcry in the forums.  CCs have done their best to bring attention to CV issues, but I don't think they're doing enough.  Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  There needs to be more noise in order to bring changes to CVs sooner rather than later.

Edited by SaidNoOneEver
misspelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,210 posts
4,051 battles

1. The UI is not that bad, not that good but easily adequate for the needs of a cv.

2. It is not really different from what we have now unless there was some form of experience system that allows pilots to get better.

3. The AA system is more complex than that. The dps is an average that does not tick every second. Your system would be similar to secondaries that never miss. The current system is not good at all. However, this is worse.

4. Faster planes are not a good idea either. With exit strafing and smart play you are highly unlikely to spend to much time in AA. Faster planes would make it easier for manual drop aiming and let dive bombers spend less time in AA. Both are unnecessary buffs to cv damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[808]
Supertester
850 posts
4,860 battles
On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, SaidNoOneEver said:

So I posted this in another thread and I wasn't sure if I would really get much feedback in that thread so I decided to post my shower thought here.  Please let me know what you think!

 

I believe that the reason why people think CVs are overpowered is because of the amount of skills necessary to make them function incredibly well.  I believe that CVs in this game are incredibly polarizing.  They attract either really good players that make make them seem OP or they attract the newcomers to the class.  The problem with the newcomers is that the team can be incredibly critical and harsh towards the CV player.  I believe my clanmates are absolutely right.  CV play is the fastest way to grind karma points and the fastest way to lose those points too because teammates will happily report you for a poor performance.  WG really does have to address this class.  This class is certainly not friendly towards new players.  That skill gap is what makes or breaks a team and it's unfortunate that, more often than not, the rest of the team is at the mercy of whichever CV player MM places your team.

I believe that part of the reason why CVs aren't noob friendly is their interface and how reminiscent it is of RTS games.  Some people don't like that!  I feel that CV play should be like that of other games like Fracture Space where you can see your fighters and bombers ingress towards the target ship and drop their payload and return to your ship....all autonomously.  I feel WG is getting wrapped around the axle with this whole "The gameplay is built around the fighters and bombers." Here are some suggestions, and believe me these have been suggested before....at least some of them have:

1) Instead of allowing the player to control the various squadrons from an overview map area, you make it so that you're looking at the whole map from the spectator's point of view (think the death cam once you've been destroyed).  From this camera view, you can see all the ships across the map that are spotted.  The camera angle and view will be similar to the spotter plane as well and this allows you to pick a target.  Once the CV player has targeted the ship, you send your TBs and DB towards that target.  If the enemy CV has sent fighters to intercept your TBs/DB, you can use a new consumable called "Evasive Action" which acts as an aircraft's Defensive Fire in order to improve their odds of survival while engaged by enemy fighters.  You can send fighters to intercept other fighters or TBs and DBs.  If they need to get there quickly, then can use their consumable called "Push it up!" or something like that that acts like "Speed Boost" for ships.  In other words, the squadrons act a lot more autonomously but as a CV player, it's your job to manage a multitude of consumables that buff your squadrons and debuff the enemy aircraft to improve the survivability of your own squadrons.  I feel that's how other games depict support ships such as a CV style ships; They have several different functions to buff/debuff their autonomous fighters/bombers as they ingress/egress from striking a target.  Finally, there are many CV drivers that would love the option to switch between AP and HE bombs.  You can imagine a keybind similar to Lucio from Overwatch that allows you to freely switch between HE and AP, but that button can only be used while the DBs are reloading/rearming back at the carrier.  If WG wanted, they can even add a slight penalty time for the rearming period to symbolize the aircraft that are downloading the previous munition type for the new munition type.  

2) Instead of a fighter/TB/DB aircraft reserve system, we can have a pilot reserve!  Why the pilot reserve system?  Because in WWII it was almost never a shortage of aircraft, it was a shortage of well trained pilots to actually crew the aircraft that was the biggest limiting factor.  WG can still keep the CV loadouts as is and every time either fighter or TB or DB squadrons are lost, they are replaced with new pilots.  This actually gives CVs the freedom from fear of losing an X amount of fighter/TB/DB squadrons and instead puts emphasis on more conservative gameplay since it will be the pilot reserves that becomes the issue.  Similar to how it's modeled in-game, the higher tiered CVs actually will have larger pilot reserves.  Finally, my reason for this change is because pilots were seen in WWII as a precious resource.  You can even modify this to reflect fighter pilots versus bomber pilots.  Lets be honest.  Bomber pilots specialized in dropping both torpedoes and bombs while fighter pilots were specially trained for air to air combat.  I think this change could reflect that.

 

3) NO MORE RNG.  No longer should AA ratings of ships have to take rolls against squadrons.  If you have AA values for short, medium, and long range AA, then you are doing that said amount of damage in DPS to an enemy squadron.  Each squadron will have a total value, but depending on the sizes of squadrons, at every fractional value they lose an aircraft in that squadron.  For example, if a squadron has 4 aircraft in that squadron, when the squadron reaches 75% HP, they lose an aircraft; and at 50% they would have lost 2 aircraft.  

 

4) Make all aircraft across the board faster.  This will aid in faster reloads/rearming.  Also, this change is contingent on WG NOT going with the changes in my first point.  Faster aircraft will at least give the illusion that the UI is more responsive than it is right now.

Anyway, these are just some of the changes that I was thinking about.  Call it a shower thought.

Spears?  I don't want people to just critique my idea.  Please, if you have a thought on how you would change my idea, do so in a way that's at least constructive and perhaps even more efficient!  I look forward to what others have to say on this....

Not really liking most of these ideas...will go through them one at a time:

1)  This really depends what type of RTS you want to emulate.  What you suggest here is something more akin to Total War...autonomous units with randomized outcomes with modifiers for unit type,ect.  Personally I've tried to get into that series and just find it rather boring to be so hands off.  WoWS to me is more along the lines of Star Craft where you have to manage all your units yourself.  I find this much more interesting.  Making everything autonomous and auto-drop will take a huge amount of skill out of CV play and make them very boring to play.  Though I will admit it would address the skill gap issue but there are other ways to deal with that.

2)  Losing pilots or losing planes...in the end the effect on the CV is the same.  It wouldn't change gameplay in the slightest.

3)  In point 1 your advocating for RNG for the CV drops...But you don't want RNG for AA?  The problem with AA isn't so much the RNG, though that is part of it, it is the inconsistency in the number of AA ships per match.  That is what makes CVs either Gods or completely useless.  Take out RNG and you are still stuck with this issue.

4)  This is more in line with my thinking.  The main reason ppl complain about CVs is that they get nuked.  But CVs need to have high alpha strikes to compensate for the huge amount of time it takes to find a target, line up the shot, return to the CV, and start all over again.  But when you look at their actual damage per unit of time, they are behind BBs already.  Nerfing them further will only hurt the class more.  BUT...if you reduce their damage and speed up the planes (decrease reload times), then getting hit by a CV is just like any other incoming fire, so less complaints...and the overall damage done by the CVs doesn't change much so you don't lose CV players.  Even AA becomes less relevant so it fixes that issue as well.  Its a win-win for everyone.  Of course that is just an outline of the idea...a lot of pieces of the puzzle will need to be tweaked to make it work but it can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
18 hours ago, InspGadgt said:

Not really liking most of these ideas...will go through them one at a time:

1)  This really depends what type of RTS you want to emulate.  What you suggest here is something more akin to Total War...autonomous units with randomized outcomes with modifiers for unit type,ect.  Personally I've tried to get into that series and just find it rather boring to be so hands off.  WoWS to me is more along the lines of Star Craft where you have to manage all your units yourself.  I find this much more interesting.  Making everything autonomous and auto-drop will take a huge amount of skill out of CV play and make them very boring to play.  Though I will admit it would address the skill gap issue but there are other ways to deal with that.

2)  Losing pilots or losing planes...in the end the effect on the CV is the same.  It wouldn't change gameplay in the slightest.

3)  In point 1 your advocating for RNG for the CV drops...But you don't want RNG for AA?  The problem with AA isn't so much the RNG, though that is part of it, it is the inconsistency in the number of AA ships per match.  That is what makes CVs either Gods or completely useless.  Take out RNG and you are still stuck with this issue.

4)  This is more in line with my thinking.  The main reason ppl complain about CVs is that they get nuked.  But CVs need to have high alpha strikes to compensate for the huge amount of time it takes to find a target, line up the shot, return to the CV, and start all over again.  But when you look at their actual damage per unit of time, they are behind BBs already.  Nerfing them further will only hurt the class more.  BUT...if you reduce their damage and speed up the planes (decrease reload times), then getting hit by a CV is just like any other incoming fire, so less complaints...and the overall damage done by the CVs doesn't change much so you don't lose CV players.  Even AA becomes less relevant so it fixes that issue as well.  Its a win-win for everyone.  Of course that is just an outline of the idea...a lot of pieces of the puzzle will need to be tweaked to make it work but it can work.


Thanks for your input!

1) while it does take the skill out of manual drops and strafes, the skill comes in managing your consumable CDs and knowing when to stack them.  
2) The purpose of making CV reserves pilot-based is so that as a CV captain you aren't restricted by a number of fighters/DBs/TBs.  Instead, you gain some flexibility when you lose specific types of attack aircraft squadrons.  

3) I admit I don't have an excellent grasp of AA mechanics.  I still understand why WG would give DPS values to AA guns yet make aircraft kills RNG based.  I know the dice-roll mechanic works and does afford aircraft opportunities to actually reach their target, but I still feel that they can be DPS-based mechanics in short-medium-long range AA but perhaps change the AA ratings/values to now allow squadrons to automatically get wiped when they encounter heavy AA ships.  However, having the added dps of other ships' auras would reflect how flak cover and AA cover was actually accomplished during WWII.
4) I'm all about reducing the reloads of planes and backing off their damage a little bit.  I feel that this is the biggest issue with USN CVs is how long it takes to rearm/replace aircraft in their larger squadrons.  Perhaps WG should just make take offs/landings and reloads the same for both nations?  Just another thought.

Edited by SaidNoOneEver
Added thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[808]
Supertester
850 posts
4,860 battles
11 hours ago, SaidNoOneEver said:


Thanks for your input!

1) while it does take the skill out of manual drops and strafes, the skill comes in managing your consumable CDs and knowing when to stack them.  
2) The purpose of making CV reserves pilot-based is so that as a CV captain you aren't restricted by a number of fighters/DBs/TBs.  Instead, you gain some flexibility when you lose specific types of attack aircraft squadrons.  

3) I admit I don't have an excellent grasp of AA mechanics.  I still understand why WG would give DPS values to AA guns yet make aircraft kills RNG based.  I know the dice-roll mechanic works and does afford aircraft opportunities to actually reach their target, but I still feel that they can be DPS-based mechanics in short-medium-long range AA but perhaps change the AA ratings/values to now allow squadrons to automatically get wiped when they encounter heavy AA ships.  However, having the added dps of other ships' auras would reflect how flak cover and AA cover was actually accomplished during WWII.
4) I'm all about reducing the reloads of planes and backing off their damage a little bit.  I feel that this is the biggest issue with USN CVs is how long it takes to rearm/replace aircraft in their larger squadrons.  Perhaps WG should just make take offs/landings and reloads the same for both nations?  Just another thought.

1) that's a much more passive game play in an otherwise very active game...I would still prefer to micro manage squads and their manual drops.  We already have management of consumables in most classes...especially BBs.  don't need the sme in CVs.

2) Unless you make pilots cross trained in every type of plane then it really makes no difference.  Whether you lose the plane or the pilot you still lose the abililty to field that damage type.  

3) And I agree...I'm just wondering why you would want to introduce RNG in drops but reduce it in AA.  Both should be RNG or both should be skill based.

4) Reload times are based on how many planes are in the squadron...more planes take longer to reload.  I get that...but the difference between USN and IJN is just too great...they need to be a bit closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[SF-3]
Beta Testers
1,616 posts
5,385 battles

FYI. The only carrier in Fractured Space is terrible. It does none of its roles well and it has no spot in any game mode because of how bad it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
745
[NG-NL]
Members
4,961 posts
8,109 battles
On 8/27/2017 at 7:40 PM, SaidNoOneEver said:

I believe that the reason why people think CVs are overpowered is because of the amount of skills necessary to make them function incredibly well.  I believe that CVs in this game are incredibly polarizing.  They attract either really good players that make make them seem OP or they attract the newcomers to the class.  The problem with the newcomers is that the team can be incredibly critical and harsh towards the CV player.  I believe my clanmates are absolutely right.  CV play is the fastest way to grind karma points and the fastest way to lose those points too because teammates will happily report you for a poor performance.  WG really does have to address this class.  This class is certainly not friendly towards new players.  That skill gap is what makes or breaks a team and it's unfortunate that, more often than not, the rest of the team is at the mercy of whichever CV player MM places your team.

1) Instead of allowing the player to control the various squadrons from an overview map area, you make it so that you're looking at the whole map from the spectator's point of view (think the death cam once you've been destroyed).  From this camera view, you can see all the ships across the map that are spotted.  The camera angle and view will be similar to the spotter plane as well and this allows you to pick a target.  Once the CV player has targeted the ship, you send your TBs and DB towards that target.  If the enemy CV has sent fighters to intercept your TBs/DB, you can use a new consumable called "Evasive Action" which acts as an aircraft's Defensive Fire in order to improve their odds of survival while engaged by enemy fighters.  You can send fighters to intercept other fighters or TBs and DBs.  If they need to get there quickly, then can use their consumable called "Push it up!" or something like that that acts like "Speed Boost" for ships.  In other words, the squadrons act a lot more autonomously but as a CV player, it's your job to manage a multitude of consumables that buff your squadrons and debuff the enemy aircraft to improve the survivability of your own squadrons.  I feel that's how other games depict support ships such as a CV style ships; They have several different functions to buff/debuff their autonomous fighters/bombers as they ingress/egress from striking a target.  Finally, there are many CV drivers that would love the option to switch between AP and HE bombs.  You can imagine a keybind similar to Lucio from Overwatch that allows you to freely switch between HE and AP, but that button can only be used while the DBs are reloading/rearming back at the carrier.  If WG wanted, they can even add a slight penalty time for the rearming period to symbolize the aircraft that are downloading the previous munition type for the new munition type.  

2) Instead of a fighter/TB/DB aircraft reserve system, we can have a pilot reserve!  Why the pilot reserve system?  Because in WWII it was almost never a shortage of aircraft, it was a shortage of well trained pilots to actually crew the aircraft that was the biggest limiting factor.  WG can still keep the CV loadouts as is and every time either fighter or TB or DB squadrons are lost, they are replaced with new pilots.  This actually gives CVs the freedom from fear of losing an X amount of fighter/TB/DB squadrons and instead puts emphasis on more conservative gameplay since it will be the pilot reserves that becomes the issue.  Similar to how it's modeled in-game, the higher tiered CVs actually will have larger pilot reserves.  Finally, my reason for this change is because pilots were seen in WWII as a precious resource.  You can even modify this to reflect fighter pilots versus bomber pilots.  Lets be honest.  Bomber pilots specialized in dropping both torpedoes and bombs while fighter pilots were specially trained for air to air combat.  I think this change could reflect that.

 

3) NO MORE RNG.  No longer should AA ratings of ships have to take rolls against squadrons.  If you have AA values for short, medium, and long range AA, then you are doing that said amount of damage in DPS to an enemy squadron.  Each squadron will have a total value, but depending on the sizes of squadrons, at every fractional value they lose an aircraft in that squadron.  For example, if a squadron has 4 aircraft in that squadron, when the squadron reaches 75% HP, they lose an aircraft; and at 50% they would have lost 2 aircraft.  

 

4) Make all aircraft across the board faster.  This will aid in faster reloads/rearming.  Also, this change is contingent on WG NOT going with the changes in my first point.  Faster aircraft will at least give the illusion that the UI is more responsive than it is right now.

Anyway, these are just some of the changes that I was thinking about.  Call it a shower thought.

Spears?  I don't want people to just critique my idea.  Please, if you have a thought on how you would change my idea, do so in a way that's at least constructive and perhaps even more efficient!  I look forward to what others have to say on this....

Exactly. CV takes some dedication since more skills used compared to other 3 classes, but the rewards are good. Though my experience is generally the salty players are at mid tiers, as nobody's yelled profanities at my CV since last year when I did a tricky island torp drop on a Farragut. As for team input, it simply depends if the player has thick skin--gonna need it cause once in a while, someone will fly off the handle about how you're a OP dirtbag and 20 other insults (pro tip: just reply "lol", nothing else).

 

1) Viable for US CVs, possibly, but not for IJN after they hit Hiryu with 8 groups. Camera is gods' view because best way to line up the attacks. Plus, automating things makes it difficult to have as much impact because your timing has to match the programming, whereas currently, the manual control allows a variety of feints and the famous IJN crossdropping.

--Passive gameplay on CV takes out the satisfaction of wrecking opponents, since it's not your manual drops, just manipulating the programming properly.

 

2) Lose pilots...lose planes. Absolutely nonsense. What'll a less-experienced pilot bring that makes it worthy as an ace? Slower plane speed? Less HP? Nothing here makes sense particularly when facing AA-specced ships.

--Can see possibility of another captain skill or module that gives better air force...specialize in fighters or bombers, with HP and speed buffs to the one chosen....it's an interesting idea. Problem is, this'll make facing T8+ CVs a real nightmare since AA spec T9-10 CAs will be mandatory just to have something to deter the CV for a bit. AA DM, Mino, even Hindenburg already have noticeable trouble fighting off a swarm of Haku or Midway planes if their AA is damaged.

--It'd be wiser for WG to make the CVs more balanced. US seems to boast more planes per squad in fewer groups. I'd just add another plane to each group and give Taiho/Haku the option of researching a 3rd module that puts 4 TB on the CV (and affected by AS captain skill). US CV line has tougher planes, whereas IJN just sticks to overwhelming. But that's just me.

 

3) AA would have to be nerfed or plane HP buffed. As I recall, short, medium, and long range AA fire once every second, 3 seconds, and 5 seconds respectively.  Add DF or AA buff skills/modules, and the planes fall much faster. Don't think it feasible, as doing either may spark another backlash (only 5% or so of WOWS community seem to know about forums). WG doesn't need this nightmare.

--That said, we have no way of knowing how many current players remember OP CVs during CBT. So maybe the backlash won't be as intense?

 

4) If it makes manual drops easier, I'm all for it. CV is a demanding class to master, which is why newbies get blasted a fair bit (just say you're new, and would like feedback on your gameplay) since most players would rather have an experienced CV captain. But if the newbie never loses badly to opposing CV, how will he ever get better.

--CVs have been consistently nerfed because they can achieve incredibly accurate alpha strikes, and instead of bringing AA builds and anti-CV tactics, whiners just insist on dying the same way again because want to be upset about it. It'll probably be better, long-term, if only defense against CV is bringing AA build, but WG needs to make US CVs more viable before any decisions there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×