Proposed CV philosophy

[Radical_20]

I made a comment on a different CV thread, but I thought I'd make a start a new, independent thread.  CVs are too unbalanced, from one tier to the next, between Japanese, and American, (and eventually other countries).. And they are a hit-or-miss with skill.  A dominant CV player can easily destroy a not-so-good one. They're frustrating to learn, and often not that enjoyable to play.

So I came up with a few thoughts.

1) Squadron size is standard on a tier-by-tier basis. Tier 4 & 5 CVs will all have 3 plane squadrons. Tier 6 & 7, 4 planes. Tier 8 & 9, 5. And Tier 10 will have 6 plane squadrons. This is to build closer equity between countries. Also with match-making as it is, a CV is guaranteed to never encounter that's more than 1 plane larger. Launch, landing, and rearming speed of larger squadrons takes longer than smaller ones. This would be consistent for all CVs at the same tier as well. For the most part, this will fit with the current premium ships (Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan). The Saipan might need changing.

2) Squadron number is standard on a tier-by-tier basis, furthermore, they have the same number of fighter squadrons, and have at least 1 squadron each of TBs and DBs. Their TB and DB squadron count may vary by no more than 1 squadron. This is to give all CVs (roughly) equal balance between Air and Strike. For example, under current system Langley has 3 6-plane squadrons. It would switch to a 6 three plane squadron, 2/1/2. Hosho would have something like 2/2/1 air group. A 2/3/0 and 2/0/3 air wing would not be possible.

So, you ask how do we have country specific "flavor"?  Well in the plane characteristics of course. If you think of airplanes like the main guns of BBs, CLs, and DDs. Each country has a flavor. Some have good AP, others good HE, others better muzzle velocity and so on. The planes could have (within a few percentage points) faster fighters, more HP, more DPS, more maneuverability, etcetera.

3) Remove strafing and manual drop, instead use other modifier techniques to enhance dog-fighting, TB and DB drop accuracy and effectiveness.

4) Introduce ship modules that enhance, separately, each plane type. For example: Air Groups Mod 1 will be changed to "Fighter Groups Mod 1" enhancing DPS of fighter guns. Other slot 1 upgrades will be added, "TB Groups Mod 1" and "DB Groups Mod 1" as separate upgrades, to enhance initial impact damage by 10%. These have to be separate mods, and not be 1 mod upgrades all planes. Why? It allows, and forces, the player to enhance just one airplane type. Player can choose to enhance a weakness of his planes for better balance, or enhance a strength for dominance. Let's say a given country's fighters are faster than other countries' fighters. The player could choose to enhance that strength, the player likes to play style of air superiority. Or, the player, knowing his/her fighters are good, my choose to enhance the weak TBs.

5) Introduce additional airplane related captain skills. Three captain skills at each skill level. Three skills, like ship modules, that are specific to each plane type. That makes for 12 different captain skills, but, would require 30 captain skills to master them all, but since captain skills only go to 19, the player has to pick and choose what to use. Like the ship upgrades, they can be used to enhance plane capability, and tailor a CVs airplane complement to the players game style.

 

I play all types of ships, so I'm not BB-centric, or CV-biased. (At least I don't think I am)

When I encounter another BB, CL, or DD, I pretty much know what I'm up against, but with CVs, I don't. This would bring equity to CVs of each tier. And with MM already matching CVs tier-by-tier, I know I'm going to have a fair fight. When I encounter those other BBs, CLs, and DDs... what I don't know is the play-style of the captain. What tweaks via upgrades and captain skills the player has made for that ship. This would now be the same for CVs.

This will allow wargaming to make minute tweaks to planes that they currently can't do. Due to the squadron size being so different between American and Japanese CVs, a minute change to an airplane's specs could cause major swings in game results.

This will allow wargaming to introduce more countries' CVs and give them each a country specific flavor. For example, they could give British TBs a tighter drop pattern (in honor of the Swordfish pilots)

Admittedly, those that are good at manual dropping and strafing will complain, but the addition of ship upgrades and captain skills should yield a more consistent and predictable play style.

This will also allow a more even growth as players advance up the tech tree. Squadron size and number grow at an even pace from one tier to the next.

 

Anyway.. these are what I came up.  I wanted to make the CV play style more consistent from country to country. Make the skills grow at a consistent rate from tier to tier. Have a "fair fight" between any two CVs. But I also wanted the players to be able to enhance a CV for their own play style, and I wanted the some "country flavor" as well. But not so much that it'd make the play style grossly different.

[Ducc_ducc]

Nice! Take a plus one while I think it over.

[aethervox]

58 minutes ago, Radical_20 said:

and often not that enjoyable to play.

You lost me right here, OP.

[Radical_20]

35 minutes ago, aethervox said:

You lost me right here, OP.

I was referring to the inconsistency and seeming inconsistency.

I enjoy playing CVs, but some games are wildly great, others wildly bad. Very few are "average." Most CV battles for me are at the extreme ends of the enjoyment spectrum. I think I'd enjoy CVs more if they fell more towards the middle of the bell curve.

[Stauffenberg44]

Sorry I read CV as Curriculum Vitae. lol

nm, carry on. I have tried ACCs here and have not managed to get on top of it.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

8 hours ago, Radical_20 said:

Anyway.. these are what I came up.  I wanted to make the CV play style more consistent from country to country. Make the skills grow at a consistent rate from tier to tier. Have a "fair fight" between any two CVs. But I also wanted the players to be able to enhance a CV for their own play style, and I wanted the some "country flavor" as well. But not so much that it'd make the play style grossly different.

So, you suggest something like the USN having stronger fighters and diverbombers, IJN have stronger torpedo bombers and more but weaker fighters?

[cometguy]

With so few CV options (2 in most cases) balancing CVs against each other is impossible unless they are clones. The data shows more, weaker squadrons beats fewer stronger squadrons. To achieve balance among CVs, you'd need something with an advantage over ijn, but a disadvantage over usn. Then each CV would be at an advantage against one, a disadvantage against the other, and a push against itself.

I also strongly disagree with the removal of manual attacks. Players have to be able to shoot in the direction of players they can't see.

[Ducc_ducc]

I have only one, and just one, problem with this;

Removal of manual attacks. Sure it may seem to be a great idea, but is it really? I have two reasons why I believe it is not.

A: Airplanes cannot spot targets in smoke, to be able to hit an object in smoke, one must have an ally spot, or use a manual attack. It is almost essential to be able to hit targets in smoke since that is how most bases are capped (a destroyer or cruiser caps while in smoke.)

B: Manual attacks are incredibly useful and easy to learn, that is, until they were removed from lower tier CVs. It used to be very easy to learn to use manual attacks in a low tier CV because you could make mistakes and not be heavily punished for it. However, Manual attacks are currently the only useful attack type and offer significant rewards when learned, to remove them would imply either:

   1: Higher damage from CV torpedoes and bombs.  

   2: Dealing a massive nerf to CVs damage.

   3: Reducing the effectiveness of fighter support, or buffing fighter damage.

   or 4: Changing auto drops to match manual drops, in which case they would simply be less useful versions of the original.

Neither of which is optimal compared to what we have now.

Other then that, the national flavor is something that must be addressed, and I think that the current American tight torpedo drops and heavy dive bombs, Contrasted to the stealthy and faster IJN ships does that quite well.

This is a great idea, and one CV rework I have few problems with.

[xKSNx]

So taking into consideration your "proposed" changes. What is the incentive to play US cv's over IJN ones?

These types of changes blur the lines between nations. I like having a ships that are specialised in a certain aspect of gameplay.(Torpedoes, fighters, etc...)

I like where you're coming from, but i don't think we should try to unify cv gameplay across all nations.

[HongkiePleb]

"Remove strafing and manual drop"

sorry this one is the most counterproductive and useless proposal ever, strafing and manual drops are currently the only things that make aircraft carriers useful, the current lack of strafing and manual drops in Tier 4 to 5 is already retarded enough, should this be implemented we might as well remove aircraft carriers altogether. Weaklings who don't know how to manoeuvre nor communicate with their aircraft carrier(/s) nor stick together with their brethren to deter aircrafts can shut their whinny traps, no one is responsible for these maggots' incompetence or recklessness, not to mention accommodate them.

[Trash_Taste_In_Waifus]

On 2017-11-09 at 8:24 PM, Radical_20 said:

I made a comment on a different CV thread, but I thought I'd make a start a new, independent thread.  CVs are too unbalanced, from one tier to the next, between Japanese, and American, (and eventually other countries).. And they are a hit-or-miss with skill.  A dominant CV player can easily destroy a not-so-good one. They're frustrating to learn, and often not that enjoyable to play.

So I came up with a few thoughts.

1) Squadron size is standard on a tier-by-tier basis. Tier 4 & 5 CVs will all have 3 plane squadrons. Tier 6 & 7, 4 planes. Tier 8 & 9, 5. And Tier 10 will have 6 plane squadrons. This is to build closer equity between countries. Also with match-making as it is, a CV is guaranteed to never encounter that's more than 1 plane larger. Launch, landing, and rearming speed of larger squadrons takes longer than smaller ones. This would be consistent for all CVs at the same tier as well. For the most part, this will fit with the current premium ships (Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan). The Saipan might need changing.

2) Squadron number is standard on a tier-by-tier basis, furthermore, they have the same number of fighter squadrons, and have at least 1 squadron each of TBs and DBs. Their TB and DB squadron count may vary by no more than 1 squadron. This is to give all CVs (roughly) equal balance between Air and Strike. For example, under current system Langley has 3 6-plane squadrons. It would switch to a 6 three plane squadron, 2/1/2. Hosho would have something like 2/2/1 air group. A 2/3/0 and 2/0/3 air wing would not be possible.

So, you ask how do we have country specific "flavor"?  Well in the plane characteristics of course. If you think of airplanes like the main guns of BBs, CLs, and DDs. Each country has a flavor. Some have good AP, others good HE, others better muzzle velocity and so on. The planes could have (within a few percentage points) faster fighters, more HP, more DPS, more maneuverability, etcetera.

3) Remove strafing and manual drop, instead use other modifier techniques to enhance dog-fighting, TB and DB drop accuracy and effectiveness.

4) Introduce ship modules that enhance, separately, each plane type. For example: Air Groups Mod 1 will be changed to "Fighter Groups Mod 1" enhancing DPS of fighter guns. Other slot 1 upgrades will be added, "TB Groups Mod 1" and "DB Groups Mod 1" as separate upgrades, to enhance initial impact damage by 10%. These have to be separate mods, and not be 1 mod upgrades all planes. Why? It allows, and forces, the player to enhance just one airplane type. Player can choose to enhance a weakness of his planes for better balance, or enhance a strength for dominance. Let's say a given country's fighters are faster than other countries' fighters. The player could choose to enhance that strength, the player likes to play style of air superiority. Or, the player, knowing his/her fighters are good, my choose to enhance the weak TBs.

5) Introduce additional airplane related captain skills. Three captain skills at each skill level. Three skills, like ship modules, that are specific to each plane type. That makes for 12 different captain skills, but, would require 30 captain skills to master them all, but since captain skills only go to 19, the player has to pick and choose what to use. Like the ship upgrades, they can be used to enhance plane capability, and tailor a CVs airplane complement to the players game style.

 

I play all types of ships, so I'm not BB-centric, or CV-biased. (At least I don't think I am)

When I encounter another BB, CL, or DD, I pretty much know what I'm up against, but with CVs, I don't. This would bring equity to CVs of each tier. And with MM already matching CVs tier-by-tier, I know I'm going to have a fair fight. When I encounter those other BBs, CLs, and DDs... what I don't know is the play-style of the captain. What tweaks via upgrades and captain skills the player has made for that ship. This would now be the same for CVs.

This will allow wargaming to make minute tweaks to planes that they currently can't do. Due to the squadron size being so different between American and Japanese CVs, a minute change to an airplane's specs could cause major swings in game results.

This will allow wargaming to introduce more countries' CVs and give them each a country specific flavor. For example, they could give British TBs a tighter drop pattern (in honor of the Swordfish pilots)

Admittedly, those that are good at manual dropping and strafing will complain, but the addition of ship upgrades and captain skills should yield a more consistent and predictable play style.

This will also allow a more even growth as players advance up the tech tree. Squadron size and number grow at an even pace from one tier to the next.

 

Anyway.. these are what I came up.  I wanted to make the CV play style more consistent from country to country. Make the skills grow at a consistent rate from tier to tier. Have a "fair fight" between any two CVs. But I also wanted the players to be able to enhance a CV for their own play style, and I wanted the some "country flavor" as well. But not so much that it'd make the play style grossly different.

No no no no no.first of all....... the only thing with CV's that need to be changed is A: remove different loadout changes (already happening) B: remove strafing out of dogfight. C: remove DEFAA's ability to [edited] up the drop pattern. D: get gud

[Trash_Taste_In_Waifus]

13 minutes ago, HongkiePleb said:

"Remove strafing and manual drop"

sorry this one is the most counterproductive and useless proposal ever, strafing and manual drops are currently the only things that make aircraft carriers useful, the current lack of strafing and manual drops in Tier 4 to 5 is already retarded enough, should this be implemented we might as well remove aircraft carriers altogether. Weaklings who don't know how to manoeuvre nor communicate with their aircraft carrier(/s) nor stick together with their brethren to deter aircrafts can shut their whinny traps, no one is responsible for these maggots' incompetence or recklessness, not to mention accommodate them.

+1

[FleetAdmiral_Assassin]

No offense to the original poster is intended, but this is yet another post just restating all the stuff that has already been said on the issue for the past several years. It has become an exercise in futility. There have been SO MANY good suggestions on how to rework CVs, and they have all landed on deaf ears.

 

WG has recently announced that they won't even look at CV rework until at least late 2018 after they recode the spotting mechanic (yay).

[mattattack007]

On 11/9/2017 at 7:24 PM, Radical_20 said:

Squadron size is standard on a tier-by-tier basis. Tier 4 & 5 CVs will all have 3 plane squadrons. Tier 6 & 7, 4 planes. Tier 8 & 9, 5. And Tier 10 will have 6 plane squadrons. This is to build closer equity between countries. Also with match-making as it is, a CV is guaranteed to never encounter that's more than 1 plane larger. Launch, landing, and rearming speed of larger squadrons takes longer than smaller ones. This would be consistent for all CVs at the same tier as well. For the most part, this will fit with the current premium ships (Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan). The Saipan might need changing.

2) Squadron number is standard on a tier-by-tier basis, furthermore, they have the same number of fighter squadrons, and have at least 1 squadron each of TBs and DBs. Their TB and DB squadron count may vary by no more than 1 squadron. This is to give all CVs (roughly) equal balance between Air and Strike. For example, under current system Langley has 3 6-plane squadrons. It would switch to a 6 three plane squadron, 2/1/2. Hosho would have something like 2/2/1 air group. A 2/3/0 and 2/0/3 air wing would not be possible.

This would greatly decrease the uniqueness of IJN vs US CV's. The object of CVs is to learn how to work with the squads you have. What it seems like you are saying is that all carriers of the same tier are essentially the same except for airplane stats. Also, skill should be a very large factor in CV play. If I have put in the time to learn how to play well, much like other captains do for their favorite ships, I should be able to wipe the floor with someone who is new. Secondly, 6 squads would be too much for new players. 3 squads are easy enough to work with and let captains learn how to manage multiple things at once. The way it is now, hosho players only have to play with 4 squads, then 5 with Zuiho and more as they go on. This ramp is necessary to acclimate new CV players.

 

All in all, this would gut CV play and make it mind-numbingly boring. 

 

[Radical_20]

18 hours ago, HongkiePleb said:

"Remove strafing and manual drop"

sorry this one is the most counterproductive and useless proposal ever, strafing and manual drops are currently the only things that make aircraft carriers useful, the current lack of strafing and manual drops in Tier 4 to 5 is already retarded enough, should this be implemented we might as well remove aircraft carriers altogether. Weaklings who don't know how to manoeuvre nor communicate with their aircraft carrier(/s) nor stick together with their brethren to deter aircrafts can shut their whinny traps, no one is responsible for these maggots' incompetence or recklessness, not to mention accommodate them.

 

So.. you're saying that your manual drops and strafing are 100% consistent? Ok.. there's some RNG in there.. so are they 90% consistent? To you shoot down an entire squadron your strafing 80% of the time? 70%?

What about manual drops. What percentage of the time you get 3 or more bomb drops? 100? 90? 80?

Yes, I proposed removing strafing and manual drops, but I also proposed captain skills that would compensate, and in a more consistent manner.

Is your bomb drop damage per game consistent?

Again, I proposed captain skills to more consistently aid your automatic drops. But.. oh well.

Question.. can you change the flight of a shell in mid-air?  Last time I checked.. WoWs doesn't have guided cruise missiles.

[Radical_20]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:55 AM, nuttybiscuit said:

So, you suggest something like the USN having stronger fighters and diverbombers, IJN have stronger torpedo bombers and more but weaker fighters?

Within a few percentage points only. That way, a player could choose captain skills to improve a weak plane type to compensate, if desired.

Example: The American Fighters could be a bit slower than the Japanese fighters, but have better HP. The Japanese fighters could be slightly faster, but less HP.

Again, within a few percentage points.

[Radical_20]

6 hours ago, mattattack007 said:

This would greatly decrease the uniqueness of IJN vs US CV's. The object of CVs is to learn how to work with the squads you have. What it seems like you are saying is that all carriers of the same tier are essentially the same except for airplane stats. Also, skill should be a very large factor in CV play. If I have put in the time to learn how to play well, much like other captains do for their favorite ships, I should be able to wipe the floor with someone who is new. Secondly, 6 squads would be too much for new players. 3 squads are easy enough to work with and let captains learn how to manage multiple things at once. The way it is now, hosho players only have to play with 4 squads, then 5 with Zuiho and more as they go on. This ramp is necessary to acclimate new CV players.

 

All in all, this would gut CV play and make it mind-numbingly boring. 

 

 

If you put in the time to learn to play well, you'd have many captain points to use to increase the stats of the airplanes, and you'd still be able to wipe the floor with a new captain who doesn't have captain skills.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

1 minute ago, Radical_20 said:

Within a few percentage points only. That way, a player could choose captain skills to improve a weak plane type to compensate, if desired.

Example: The American Fighters could be a bit slower than the Japanese fighters, but have better HP. The Japanese fighters could be slightly faster, but less HP.

Again, within a few percentage points.

Sooo, much as IJN and USN planes are already, in game?

[Ducc_ducc]

8 minutes ago, Radical_20 said:

 

So.. you're saying that your manual drops and strafing are 100% consistent? Ok.. there's some RNG in there.. so are they 90% consistent? To you shoot down an entire squadron your strafing 80% of the time? 70%?

What about manual drops. What percentage of the time you get 3 or more bomb drops? 100? 90? 80?

Yes, I proposed removing strafing and manual drops, but I also proposed captain skills that would compensate, and in a more consistent manner.

Is your bomb drop damage per game consistent?

Again, I proposed captain skills to more consistently aid your automatic drops. But.. oh well.

Question.. can you change the flight of a shell in mid-air?  Last time I checked.. WoWs doesn't have guided cruise missiles.

As to the first few questions, yes, at least for IJN CVs manual attacks are very consistent.

I gave a couple of reasons as to why manual drop should not be removed, and I hope that will be sufficient reasoning to convince you that it should not be removed.

[Radical_20]

2 minutes ago, megadeux said:

As to the first few questions, yes, at least for IJN CVs.

I gave a couple of reasons as to why manual drop should not be removed, and I hope that will be sufficient reasoning to convince you that it should not be removed.

I hope one of us is right.  Right now, from what I've read on these forums, CV play is too hit-or-miss. Too lopsided.

Yes, my thoughts would make CVs more generic, in the base forms. But it also allowed ship modules and captain skills to personalize CV play to one's own style. Look at all the load-outs and captain skills the other ship types have... I want that for CVs too. But.. I don't want those load-outs to skew the personality to an extreme degree.

If a newbie CV player gets totally wiped off the map by an experienced player.. or just plane dumb luck, they may not play CVs again. A newbie should at least feel they've got a fighting chance. The initial learning curve is extremely steep (IMO).. and easily frustration inducing.

I've been on the receiving end of a butt-kicking, and I've been on the other end. Rarely have my CV battles been a long drawn out affair. And that's not fun for anybody.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

5 hours ago, Radical_20 said:

The initial learning curve is extremely steep (IMO)

point, click to attack?

5 hours ago, Radical_20 said:

The initial learning curve is extremely steep (IMO)

I suspect you are confusing the learning curve (in fact very shallow) with the effects of sealclubbing by experienced players in fully researched ships with 10 pt captains. The ability advantage given by these passive buffs (not a player skill advantage) is undoubtedly frustrating for new players.

[GreyFox78659]

Strafing needs to go manual drops can stay for now but strafing has to go.

[SkeletonDenial]

at this point any proposal is a good proposal. which i knew what do do with them