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

My idea on fixing CVs.

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles

There's a lot of threads on fixing CVs, so I've decided to try my hand at it. 

The first issue with CVs is that they are heavily reliant on skill. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this can be fixed altogether. However, I think there can be a few things that could mitigate this.

Lower tiers.

A: Reduce strafe damage by about half on lower tiers (4-6) so that strafes can still be used to learn how the mechanic works, but not abused by clubbers. 

B: give lower tiers alt attacks, but reduce the damage of their ordinance. 

C: have a pop-up that has a tutorial attached when a player first purchases a CV. (This doesn't really help bad players, but reduces the learning curve)

On to higher tiers now.

A: Clearly mark AA auras of all visible ships, one of the best marks of a good CV player is how well they read the limits of AA.

B: remove air supremacy (the skill) it's essentially redundant, as all CVs must have it. There is no point having a skill in game that you cannot play well without. Make it like CE and be an automatic skill.

C: tighten the radius of the USN DB drops, make it equivalent to the IJN spread.

There are a couple of general mechanic changes as well.

A: remove all AA upgrades and skills, and remove the AA functions of secondary upgrades. Instead add AA to all ships in the game, making it an average between a full AA spec and no skills at all. This is because without skills many ships are utterly defenseless, and fully spec'ed many ships are utterly invulnerable. AA skills are also very expensive. This way all ships have a chance.

B: reduce strafe damage, as well as the drain it puts on ammo.

C: give CVs a spotter squadron, which is faster then all other squads but cannot fight.

D: to reduce multitasking load, make DB auto drops equivalent to manual.

E: reduce US squad size to 6 (with skill) but give the tier 7 and 8 CV an extra fighter, the tier 6 CV an extra bomber, and the tiers 9-10 CV an extra DB.

F: tighten auto drop spreads, and make them slightly closer, so they can be an alternative to manuals and ease multitasking.

G: lower DDs air detect from 2.something to 1.something. this should reduce permanent spotting severely.

H: large ships should be able to be spotted by planes in smoke, with a reduced detection radius. Which should correspond with their AA range. This only takes effect when their AA guns fire.

And whatever else I think of later.

Edited by megadeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

Most of it is ok, but giving DBS with 1000 lb bombs the ijn drop radius would be an unbelievably massive buff, and people would be longing for the old days when it was just high tier ijn CVs that were gods.

Edited by cometguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
4 minutes ago, cometguy said:

Most of it is ok, but giving DBS with 1000 lb bombs the ijn drop radius would be an unbelievably massive buff, and people would be longing for the old days when it was just high tier ijn CVs that were gods.

Well, did also suggest reduced squadron size and more AA in general, so I think it will balance out, and the DBs will still do less damage than TB squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

Also, if I had a spotter that was faster than fighters, I would permanently spot the enemy CV, and it wouldn't take long for my team to sink them. Then it's 1 CV vs 0. So if we do that, we need to be in a state where mirror MM is no longer needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,605 posts
4,066 battles

I'm with you on most of these, OP, there are some really good ideas here. 

The 'strafe' mechanic just needs to go away, though.  It doesn't correspond to anything in real life.  When an RL pilot 'strafes' something, that is 100% an attack on a ground target.  That's what the word means (regardless of it being co-opted by the FPS crowd to mean 'walking sideways').

Besides, in what battle have combat fighter pilots ever formed up in a line, and flown straight while holding down their triggers as a tactic?

6 minutes ago, cometguy said:

Most of it is ok, but giving DBS with 1000 lb bombs the ijn drop radius would be an unbelievably massive buff, and people would be longing for the old days when it was just high tier ijn CVs that were gods.

Historically, dive bombers were much more accurate than they are in game.  DB attacks from USN CV's are laughably ineffective as it is if you don't manage to pull off a perfectly targeted manual strike.  Besides, bomb damage and fire chance can be tweaked to make this attack reasonable within the framework of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
3 minutes ago, cometguy said:

Also, if I had a spotter that was faster than fighters, I would permanently spot the enemy CV, and it wouldn't take long for my team to sink them. Then it's 1 CV vs 0. So if we do that, we need to be in a state where mirror MM is no longer needed.

There are large islands to block incoming fire. I do it all the time in my CVs, being detected is no big problem with good positioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
Just now, Fishrokk said:

Historically, dive bombers were much more accurate than they are in game.  DB attacks from USN CV's are laughably ineffective as it is if you don't manage to pull off a perfectly targeted manual strike.  Besides, bomb damage and fire chance can be tweaked to make this attack reasonable within the framework of the game. 

I get that, but we don't need to be handing out devastating double strikes like candy. Game play has to Trump historical accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles

Wow, no downvotes yet! Generally when I post a topic involving CVs I get a ton of them in the first hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
3 minutes ago, megadeux said:

There are large islands to block incoming fire. I do it all the time in my CVs, being detected is no big problem with good positioning.

But are you permanently spotted? You'll be unable to relocate, without being exposed. Someone's going to get an angle on you sooner than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
4 minutes ago, cometguy said:

But are you permanently spotted? You'll be unable to relocate, without being exposed. Someone's going to get an angle on you sooner than later.

Yes, in a couple games I have been for a long time. However, this is something IJN CVs can do anyways, since they have their super speedy empty DBs, I'm simply giving both lines this ability.

Edited by megadeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,893
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,733 posts
7,742 battles

I dislike the idea of simply removing skills, I agree AS is not great but simply removing it is not the answer it needs to be replaced with something else that helps CVs but is not so punishing to CVs with low skill captains. In the past I suggested a skill that increases ship reserves by some % or improves the planes in some other way.

 

Same with the AA suggestion. AA is not a problem because people can build into it, its a problem because its all-or-nothing in its nature. You either have enough AA to protect the ship or its effectively useless and then the CV has no way to play around it. AA needs a much more significant rework to change that aspect of it and I have a thread linked in my sig where I detail a suggestion for that. Plus ideally people should choose to to have strong AA or be strong in other areas, not just get some for free. CVs should be threatening enough that at least a decent amount of players feel that investing in AA is worth while but not so much that everyone feels the need. I have also previously suggested that firing primary guns should temporarily debuff unprotected AA guns, this at least gives CVs with weak aircraft a way to attack ships with strong AA that are poorly played. 

 

Otherwise the ideas are mostly good but have been covered before. I still think that fixing CVs requires more than playing with numbers and multipliers. The CV game is too simplistic in a number of ways and those mechanics need to be improved for example in dogfights right now the situation two squads enter a dogfight except for external factors like AA nearby. However if maneuvering squads effected their speed then there could be optimal speeds for entering engagements (remembering for example that zeros favored maneuvering combat at lower speeds because the controls became very heavy at higher speeds) then the skill of captains setting up the dogfight could influence the result. 

 

WG could also add clouds which block plane line of sight allowing CV captains to ambush each other or sneak strikes in. Smoke already blocks line of sight of planes and it should be relatively easy to adapt a version for being in the sky instead of on the surface.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
3 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

I dislike the idea of simply removing skills, I agree AS is not great but simply removing it is not the answer it needs to be replaced with something else that helps CVs but is not so punishing to CVs with low skill captains. In the past I suggested a skill that increases ship reserves by some % or improves the planes in some other way.

 

Same with the AA suggestion. AA is not a problem because people can build into it, its a problem because its all-or-nothing in its nature. You either have enough AA to protect the ship or its effectively useless and then the CV has no way to play around it. AA needs a much more significant rework to change that aspect of it and I have a thread linked in my sig where I detail a suggestion for that. Plus ideally people should choose to to have strong AA or be strong in other areas, not just get some for free. CVs should be threatening enough that at least a decent amount of players feel that investing in AA is worth while but not so much that everyone feels the need. I have also previously suggested that firing primary guns should temporarily debuff unprotected AA guns, this at least gives CVs with weak aircraft a way to attack ships with strong AA that are poorly played. 

 

Otherwise the ideas are mostly good but have been covered before. I still think that fixing CVs requires more than playing with numbers and multipliers. The CV game is too simplistic in a number of ways and those mechanics need to be improved for example in dogfights right now the situation two squads enter a dogfight except for external factors like AA nearby. However if maneuvering squads effected their speed then there could be optimal speeds for entering engagements (remembering for example that zeros favored maneuvering combat at lower speeds because the controls became very heavy at higher speeds) then the skill of captains setting up the dogfight could influence the result. 

 

WG could also add clouds which block plane line of sight allowing CV captains to ambush each other or sneak strikes in. Smoke already blocks line of sight of planes and it should be relatively easy to adapt a version for being in the sky instead of on the surface.  

I am very hesitant to suggest new mechanics at all. I read your suggestions and found them extremely interesting, but for every other ship the mechanics are very simplistic, at least on the surface. For CVs you already have a massive amount of things to think about. Think of hopping into CVs and noticing that you have an altitude control, speed adjustment controls, there are drifting cloud banks across the screen, and all of this on top of your duties to the team. 

More mechanics means more balancing tools yes, but also more ways to break the game, more exploits, and more mental strain on to the captains.

As to the captain skills, I can imagine that there would be better things to be placed there, AA skills are highly expensive. And I don't see why they should stay that way, perhaps a good skill to keep would be a level 3 version of manual fire control for AA, with a slight debuff. But AA builds are just a headache, a nasty surprise that are nearly impossible to find out about before you get burned. Sort of like radar is to DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,605 posts
4,066 battles
1 hour ago, cometguy said:

I get that, but we don't need to be handing out devastating double strikes like candy. Game play has to Trump historical accuracy.

I agree with you on game play trumping historical accuracy - 100%!  But like I said, the bomb statistics can be tweaked to prevent what you're afraid of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
1 hour ago, Fishrokk said:

I agree with you on game play trumping historical accuracy - 100%!  But like I said, the bomb statistics can be tweaked to prevent what you're afraid of.

It's not as if you can't double strike easily with a DoT stack.

Edited by megadeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
4 hours ago, Fishrokk said:

I'm with you on most of these, OP, there are some really good ideas here. 

The 'strafe' mechanic just needs to go away, though.  It doesn't correspond to anything in real life.  When an RL pilot 'strafes' something, that is 100% an attack on a ground target.  That's what the word means (regardless of it being co-opted by the FPS crowd to mean 'walking sideways').

Besides, in what battle have combat fighter pilots ever formed up in a line, and flown straight while holding down their triggers as a tactic?

Historically, dive bombers were much more accurate than they are in game.  DB attacks from USN CV's are laughably ineffective as it is if you don't manage to pull off a perfectly targeted manual strike.  Besides, bomb damage and fire chance can be tweaked to make this attack reasonable within the framework of the game. 

I kept strafe since it works as a force equaliser, allowing a skilled player to defeat more powerful forces. I don't know what I'd have done if I couldn't strafe in my ijn CVs, probably would have given up due to frustration long ago.

I suggested nerfing it because it's too good currently. But as a mechanic it had merit.

Edited by megadeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×