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

Why CV Rework is A LOT more complicated than most people think

140 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,305
[PNG]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,027 posts
6,035 battles

I've been seeing a lot of discussion on CV reworks lately and I want to offer some thoughts on CV reworks and why it's a hell of a lot more complicated than most people realize

 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[KSC]
Members
210 posts
7,797 battles

i saw this earlier.

they really do need a rework but doing a System like Battle stations would be a bad idea for this game.

 

(Note this is a reply to a lot of the comments there)

 

my only idea that i know would be good for the game is one thing is they should make it that CV's secondary's need to be manual controlled.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,059
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,223 posts
8,804 battles

It is nice to see something on this from a CV god. There is no simple fix although to me simplifying the class and how it works is the direction they need to go with removing manual drops as they currently exist as part of it and the same applies to strafe which is an I Win button in its current form particularly with a highly trained captain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,297
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,754 posts
9,484 battles

It's pretty easy.

1. Take current Mechanics
2. Throw in trash can
3. Come up with something different that is similar to what the other classes have.

The idea I have seen @issm bring up, where squadrons are fire and forget, makes a LOT more sense given the mechanics of the other classes.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles
25 minutes ago, iChase said:

I've been seeing a lot of discussion on CV reworks lately and I want to offer some thoughts on CV reworks and why it's a hell of a lot more complicated than most people realize

 

Although I see your point. I actually think CVs are fine, as essentially an average player in the IJN lines, I have to say CVs aren't really as broken as a lot of people say they are. And I'm the best target a CV can hit. The skill gap can be overcome by a semi-coordinated team, and CVs just require a lot of practice.

What is unfun with CVs are;

AS CVs which basically murder the other CVs fun. 

And high tier ship blobs. As a down tiered CV, it is really frustrating to do nothing as I can't do anything.

I think the first can be fixed, the second, no.

Not only that, but another huge issue is the lack of knowledge a CV player starts out with, CV play is so opaque that starting out with nothing means that if you don't look them up you might never learn most if the tricks that improve CV play.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,021
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,041 posts
11,539 battles

I think you make some really solid points on the complexity of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,021
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,041 posts
11,539 battles
11 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

It's pretty easy.

1. Take current Mechanics
2. Throw in trash can
3. Come up with something different that is similar to what the other classes have.

The idea I have seen @issm bring up, where squadrons are fire and forget, makes a LOT more sense given the mechanics of the other classes.

Fire and forget would be a pretty boring game for the CV no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
567
[HRDP]
Members
2,686 posts
8,120 battles

One of the main reasons as to why I am absolutely against the idea of mirroring the CV plane loadouts with each other, or rather, more specifically, giving USN CV's the same plane loadouts of IJN. While it would solve the national balance issues, it would also absolutely decrease the CV player base further by making both lines even more inaccessible to average players. Currently one of the few advantages that USN Cv's have is their fewer squadrons makes them a hell of a lot easier to play, which is why they are still fairly popular despite their underpowered nature. High tier IJN CV's are so damn difficult to micromanage because of how many squadrons they have, they are nearly impossible for anyone but a unicum to play them effectively. The difference between a skilled IJN Cv player and an unskilled IJN CV player is much more profound than the skill gap between USN CV players. So while mirror squadrons would solve the national balance problem, it would come at the cost of making the skill gap problem all the much worse, and cause even more of the highly unfun match blowouts to happen, where one team gets absolutely stomped.

I am also a firm believer in that lines consisting of mostly historical ships should be accessible to the general community. Leave those powerful but insanely difficult to master ship lines to ones predominantly composed of paper ships. So if anything, IJN CV's ought to be re balanced to have larger squadrons but fewer numbers of them, rather than giving the USN smaller squadrons but a larger number of them.

Edited by ryuukei8569

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles

I also watched this video earlier.  And I think that iChase is overthinking the problem, BIG TIME.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles
3 minutes ago, ryuukei8569 said:

One of the main reasons as to why I am absolutely against the idea of mirroring the CV plane loadouts with each other, or rather, more specifically, giving USN CV's the same plane loadouts of IJN. While it would solve the national balance issues, it would also absolutely decrease the CV player base further by making both lines even more inaccessible to average players. Currently one of the few advantages that USN Cv's have is their fewer squadrons makes them a hell of a lot easier to play, which is why they are still fairly popular despite their underpowered nature. High tier IJN CV's are so damn difficult to micromanage because of how many squadrons they have, they are nearly impossible for anyone but a unicum to play them effectively. The difference between a skilled IJN Cv player and an unskilled IJN CV player is much more profound than the skill gap between USN CV players. So while mirror squadrons would solve the national balance problem, it would come at the cost of making the skill gap problem all the much worse, and cause even more of the highly unfun match blowouts to happen, where one team gets absolutely stomped.

I am also a firm believer in that lines consisting of mostly historical ships should be accessible to the general community. Leave those powerful but insanely difficult to master ship lines to ones predominantly composed of paper ships. So if anything, IJN CV's ought to be re balanced to have fewer but larger squadrons, rather than giving the USN smaller but a larger number of squadrons.

I don't think that one has to or necessarily should truly "mirror" loadouts, assuming that by mirroring, you mean that if a Ranger has a 112 loadout, the Hiryu should have a 112 loadout.  No, I don't want that.  I think that they should keep a small degree of national flavor.

But I also think that they should increase squadron sizes to 6 for all nations for a couple reasons. 1.  Making all squadron sizes the same makes balancing them much easier, IMO.  2. Making all squadrons larger decreases the number of squadrons in the air for a CV, thus reduces the level of micro management required, by, in theory, about a third.

Back to the not quite mirrored loadouts.  I think that it should be sort of like this.  If the Ranger has a 112 loadout, the Hiryu should have a 121 loadout, because the USN favors  DBs while the IJN  favors TBs.  Of course, if you then end up with a carrier with a 122 loadout, well, it's going to be difficult to not have that mirrored by the other nation's carrier.  Or instead of 122, you could go with 113 and 131, though I think that some might see that as a rather considerable mismatch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles
11 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Fire and forget would be a pretty boring game for the CV no?

Better to be boring and simple than for the mechanics to be so complex that they greatly favor and leverage player skill as badly as they do currently.

 

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
21 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Fire and forget would be a pretty boring game for the CV no?

Not if the CV sailed in with the rest of the team.  Maybe given unlimited planes, it could play as a support ship designed to disrupt enemy ships while in the thick of combat.  Maybe also give CV guns control to the player.

This system would give hybrid CV/BBs viability.  They’d play like giant armored cruisers with planes acting like super long range secondaries.

 

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles
24 minutes ago, megadeux said:

Although I see your point. I actually think CVs are fine, as essentially an average player in the IJN lines, I have to say CVs aren't really as broken as a lot of people say they are. And I'm the best target a CV can hit. The skill gap can be overcome by a semi-coordinated team, and CVs just require a lot of practice.

What is unfun with CVs are;

AS CVs which basically murder the other CVs fun. 

And high tier ship blobs. As a down tiered CV, it is really frustrating to do nothing as I can't do anything.

I think the first can be fixed, the second, no.

Not only that, but another huge issue is the lack of knowledge a CV player starts out with, CV play is so opaque that starting out with nothing means that if you don't look them up you might never learn most if the tricks that improve CV play.

I disagree.

A carrier player's success (and I don't really mean  WR in this case, but his ability to play well) shouldn't be dependednt on his own team.  And frankly, the problem with CVs currently is that they are too complex to play, require too much time and effort (and practice) to get good in.  They need to be dumbed down!  They need to require LESS work to be able to be played decently, not more.

High tier ship blobs are actually the historical way of countering air strikes.  Get a bunch of BBs in a blob with some good AA cruisers, and no carrier can touch it, or at least the cost will be so incredibly high that they won't be able to repeat it all that often.  But I don't really recall seeing such AA ship blobs all that often these days.  People tend to go their own way, leaving carriers free to seek out strays to pounce on.  Arguably, this is one of the reasons why CVs can be stronger later in battles (as long as they've preserved a good core of planes).  Fewer ships, probably more spread out and perhaps with some of their AA weapons stripped off by HE spamming, mean more strays to pick off.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles
2 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Not if the CV sailed in with the rest of the team.  Maybe given unlimited planes, it could play as a support ship designed to disrupt enemy ships while in the thick of combat.  Maybe also give CV guns control to the player.

:Smile_facepalm:

CVs should never sail with the fleet.  Even in WW2, CVs didn't sail with the fleet.  The fleet sailed with them.  And no that's not a difference of semantics.  In this game, the fleet will be on the front lines, which would mean that CVs sailing with them would be exposed to fire from the enemy.  In reality, the fleet sailed with the carriers to provide them with more AA protection.  The fleet would only separate from the carrier if there was some enemy surface group that they wanted to intercept and engage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles
2 minutes ago, awiggin said:

It's not complicated at all....

Remove them...Done. :Smile_teethhappy:

Well, that is about as "simple" a fix as can be imagined.  Not that it would happen, mind you, particularly since they've already sold premium CVs and I'm doubting that WG wants to refund them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

:Smile_facepalm:

CVs should never sail with the fleet.  Even in WW2, CVs didn't sail with the fleet.  The fleet sailed with them.  And no that's not a difference of semantics.  In this game, the fleet will be on the front lines, which would mean that CVs sailing with them would be exposed to fire from the enemy.  In reality, the fleet sailed with the carriers to provide them with more AA protection.  The fleet would only separate from the carrier if there was some enemy surface group that they wanted to intercept and engage.

 

In reality, CVs were insanely vunurable to damage.  Currently in-game, they have tremendous durability. Either make then tin cans or put them in the battle.  They’re hogging all the victory points by parking in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles
6 minutes ago, Sventex said:

In reality, CVs were insanely vunurable to damage.  Currently in-game, they have tremendous durability. Either make then tin cans or put them in the battle.  They’re hogging all the victory points by parking in the back.

That's irrelevant.  Big deal if they're hogging their victory points.  Both team's CVs are doing the same thing by properly hiding in their rear areas.  Find something else to complain about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,216 posts
4,051 battles
44 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

It's pretty easy.

1. Take current Mechanics
2. Throw in trash can
3. Come up with something different that is similar to what the other classes have.

The idea I have seen @issm bring up, where squadrons are fire and forget, makes a LOT more sense given the mechanics of the other classes.

Check out the tau fleet from bfg Armada. Super strong borring as hell to play. You can even set everything to auto and just walk away and win many games.

It is the very thing Issm want carriers to be. 

Scout plane = Auger prove

Fire and forget torpedo bombers = homing torpedoes

Fire and forget dive bombers = bombers that cause dots with upgrades.

Fighters providing cap = fighters only defend an area around the carrier.

Granted he didn't advocate for carriers getting tau style main batteries to backup those abilities but potato patato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
863
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,849 posts
4,224 battles
6 minutes ago, StoneRhino said:

Check out the tau fleet from bfg Armada. Super strong borring as hell to play. You can even set everything to auto and just walk away and win many games.

It is the very thing Issm want carriers to be. 

Scout plane = Auger prove

Fire and forget torpedo bombers = homing torpedoes

Fire and forget dive bombers = bombers that cause dots with upgrades.

Fighters providing cap = fighters only defend an area around the carrier.

Granted he didn't advocate for carriers getting tau style main batteries to backup those abilities but potato patato

y4E1HVM.gif


Also.... Hyped for BFG: Armara II? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
863
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,849 posts
4,224 battles
31 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Better to be boring and simple than for the mechanics to be so complex that they greatly favor and leverage player skill as badly as they do currently.

You've made it pretty clear that you want to play an Idle RPG instead of an actual game. May I suggest Sword Knights: Idle RPG? Seems much more your speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
567
[HRDP]
Members
2,686 posts
8,120 battles
7 minutes ago, Sventex said:

In reality, CVs were insanely vunurable to damage.  Currently in-game, they have tremendous durability. Either make then tin cans or put them in the battle.  They’re hogging all the victory points by parking in the back.

Eh, that was more dependent on the class of CV rather than the whole type being vulnerable. Yewah light Carriers and escort Carriers where very vulnerable, but that is often becuase of size limitations. Many Treaty CV's weren't that tough either, but again that was because of treaty limitations and nations trying to min-max their designs. Treaty Cruisers where often just as fragile due to the same type of limitations. However other CV designs could be very tough and survivable. Many of the British armored Fleet CV's could take one hell of a beating, and the American Essex was no slouch in the survivability department either. Likewise the Yorktown CV's often took a tremendous beating before going down. IJN CV's where more often than not, victims of poor damage control rather than poor survivability, particularly in Taiho's case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
12 minutes ago, ryuukei8569 said:

Likewise the Yorktown CV's often took a tremendous beating before going down.

Didn't matter the beating Yorktown took before going down, she was dead in the water after 2 torpedoes, and the crew abandoned ship.  There's no way a crewless, dead in the water CV with no power and a jammed rudder is going to be landing planes for refueling/rearming, and having the squadrons take off again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,898 battles

Battle stations pacific was not just manual control of planes.

You could auto select targets for you planes to go to and they would follow out that task.

Basically the same concepts as in our game but you the way you controlled them and the grid/map you had was easier to use and made more sense.

There is no scrolling from one grid to another You see the whole battle on 1 screen and all your planes on one screen and where they are on 1 screen.

For some reason in Battle stations pacific you were able to keep up with multiple squadrons much easier i think than our game.

 

Edited by GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
5 minutes ago, GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND said:

Battle stations pacific was not just manual control of planes.

You could auto select targets for you planes to go to and they would follow out that task.

Basically the same concepts as in our game but you the way you controlled them and the grid/map you had was easier to use and made more sense.

For some reason in Battle stations pacific you were able to keep up with multiple squadrons much easier i think than our game.

 

This game also has auto select targets, but the AI that flew the planes in Battlestations was a great deal more sophisticated in handling attacks independently, and there was no "strafing" mechanic to worry about.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×