Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
enderland07

Make Carriers Great Again - 5 Easy Steps to Fixing CVs

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

678
[MIA-A]
Members
1,971 posts
6,570 battles

Goal

Increase CV player engagement while reducing the negative experience CVs provide other players.

Changes

  1. Increase hangers size by 30% for all CVs
  2. Decrease plane health by 15% for all CVs
  3. Decrease all CV damage by 50%
  4. Decrease CV plane reload times by 15%
  5. Increase non-USN destroyer AA when manually focusing planes by an additional 10%

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,571
[BIAS]
Members
3,047 posts
9,016 battles
5 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

They are deadly enough 

Reading and comprehension are op. 50% reduction in damage... 

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,126 battles

hey dude 1st of april was yesterday

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
678
[MIA-A]
Members
1,971 posts
6,570 battles
1 minute ago, HyenaHiena said:

hey dude 1st of april was yesterday

Thank you for your contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,824
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
10 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Thank you for your contribution.

x8gxwln.gif

emJSSpD.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[D-DAY]
[D-DAY]
Members
55 posts
22,250 battles

How about 2 simple steps: 1) increase to 1000 the damage points for a fighter destroying an enemy aircraft and to 500 for surface ships destroying an enemy aircraft; 2) add a fighter heavy load-out to the US CVs.

Step 1 adds to a CV's damage, rewarding them for supporting their team via air cover and also surface ship captains who configure their vessels for AA and use them for support.

Step 2 enables a hard counter to the strike heavy IJN CVs and provides for a real contest in the skies with US carriers actually having a defining role.

The 1000 damage per destroyed aircraft should provide adequate additional damage values for the US carriers to make credits for playing.  If not, that value can be increased an additional amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,041
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,169 posts
8,785 battles

It will take a lot more than that, there is no magic wand that will fix CV's. They need to be completely rethought and recreated to be fun and playable for all players and not the few unicums that do well with them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
49 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Goal

Increase CV player engagement while reducing the negative experience CVs provide other players.

Changes

  1. Increase hangers size by 30% for all CVs
  2. Decrease plane health by 15% for all CVs
  3. Decrease all CV damage by 50%
  4. Decrease CV plane reload times by 15%
  5. Increase non-USN destroyer AA when manually focusing planes by an additional 10%

This does nothing to address the real problem.  The skill gap between unicum CV mains and everyone else, which is only exacerbated by the way that carrier play is handled in the game.  

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,117 posts
18,633 battles
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This does nothing to address the real problem.  The skill gap between unicum CV mains and everyone else, which is only exacerbated by the way that carrier play is handled in the game.  

Listen to him, he speaks the truth. Don't care how much they try to fix the numbers game with the CV's you will still lose the air war if your CV is a potato. I think the worst case was a Enterprise that lost the game against a strike Lex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
9,200 battles

One EASY step... remove CVs, thank you, and thank you again...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,126 battles

Thank you for your contribution.

your welcome~

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
16 minutes ago, Morpheous said:

One EASY step... remove CVs, thank you, and thank you again...

LOL.  I see that the "remove CV" haters haven't found you yet and bombed you with negs.  Of course, by my posting this, I'm sure that there'll be a few heading my way.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
[WOLF2]
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

I think this would be a big step in the wrong direction.

1) cutting their damage in half would put all CVs in destroyer damage level territory. That's a pretty extreme change.

2) better CV players get in and out of AA quickly, so their losses would be less severe.  While there would be added reserves, that wouldn't matter much if your planes are always getting shot down before they drop their bombs/torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,633
[INTEL]
Members
8,433 posts
25,306 battles
17 minutes ago, Morpheous said:

One EASY step... remove CVs, thank you, and thank you again...

Yep. Or at least give people the option of opting out of being XP pinatas. 

WG obviously thinks cancer damage is important to its business model. If that is the case, remove the human factor. Simply make planes arrive from offmap or an island base like they do in operations. Make the base destroyable by opposing ships.

WG refuses to address the skill issue even though there are numerous ways to do that. They refuse to address botting and AFKing by CVs. The conclusion is obvious: having crappy aircraft carrier players in the game is important to its business model.

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
678
[MIA-A]
Members
1,971 posts
6,570 battles
4 minutes ago, cometguy said:

I think this would be a big step in the wrong direction.

1) cutting their damage in half would put all CVs in destroyer damage level territory. That's a pretty extreme change.

2) better CV players get in and out of AA quickly, so their losses would be less severe.  While there would be added reserves, that wouldn't matter much if your planes are always getting shot down before they drop their bombs/torpedoes.

Why is (1) actually a problem for the game as a whole? 

Your (2) is actually perfectly my point: better CVs don't lose their planes much already. So that would primarily benefit CV players who aren't as good.

35 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This does nothing to address the real problem.  The skill gap between unicum CV mains and everyone else, which is only exacerbated by the way that carrier play is handled in the game.  

It does a few things to do this.

  1. Makes it less easy for unicums to straight up delete people immediately and allow more consistent damage over time. As much as those of us who are good don't get deleted by CVs very often, the average player (especially at higher tiers) is going to be straightup fodder for a decent let alone good CV player. 
  2. Gives worse CVs more planes, which means more people get plane kills and/or they have more chances (ie a single strafe doesn't necessarily deplane CVs or pretty heavily remove them from the game)
  3. It effectively reduces impact of CV in games, which imo is good overall for the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
4 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Yep. Or at least give people the option of opting out of being XP pinatas. 

WG obviously thinks cancer damage is important to its business model. If that is the case, remove the human factor. Simply make planes arrive from offmap or an island base like they do in operations. Make the base destroyable by opposing ships.

WG refuses to address the skill issue even though there are numerous ways to do that. They refuse to address botting and AFKing by CVs. The conclusion is obvious: having crappy aircraft carrier players in the game is important its business model.

Opt outs are just not an acceptable solution.  It would be tantamount to outright removal, which is what they should do instead.

However...

I actually do think that they want to address the skill issue.  The problem is that people here, you included since you write this post, Tai, don't have any patience and seem to think that if a problem isn't fixed tomorrow or in the very next patch that that means that WG is refusing to do something on whatever issue.  These things take time, possibly many months.

As for the issue of "botting" by CVs (by which I'm sort of assuming that you're talking about a CV player creating an alt account to build up high tier players so that he can simul drop both his main account and his "bot CV" account so that he can get an  easy CV battle against his afk-bot CV), I'm not entirely sure what they can do.  Ban CVs that have too low a WR?  Have a bot program take over an afk CV?  

On the idea of a WG bot program take over a bot CV, this scares me on one level.  If the WG CV bot is only coop grade, it's almost rewarding the offending player for dropping his bot CV by giving him an opponent that's fighting back, but at an extremely poor level of play.  What might be amusing, though harsh to the offending CV player's team, would be to have a WG CV bot program take over that was as absolutely super-unicum level talent as possible.  Basically a "god" level of CV player talent that would make life miserable for the offending CV player, as a deterrent against this sort of behavior.  unfortunately, it'd also be really, really hard on the offending CV player's team, if the WG bot was that great.  OTOH, here's a wild idea.  Make the WG CV bot program turn all planes on whatever carrier it's controlling into fighters.  No bombers.  And have that carrier totally neutralize the offending CV player's planes!  This way, the WG CV bot's wrath would be strictly directed at the offending CV player rather than the rest of his team.

Well, that's enough for now...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
4 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

 

It does a few things to do this.

  1. Makes it less easy for unicums to straight up delete people immediately and allow more consistent damage over time. As much as those of us who are good don't get deleted by CVs very often, the average player (especially at higher tiers) is going to be straightup fodder for a decent let alone good CV player. 
  2. Gives worse CVs more planes, which means more people get plane kills and/or they have more chances (ie a single strafe doesn't necessarily deplane CVs or pretty heavily remove them from the game)
  3. It effectively reduces impact of CV in games, which imo is good overall for the game

I disagree, Ender.

The things needed to address the skill gap are things like the following.

1. Remove fighter strafing.

2. If that's not enough, remove manual TB and DB attacks.  In compensation, perhaps consider reducing the size of the DB attack ellipses as well as tightening up the TB spreads for auto attacks.

3. If that's not enough, perhaps turn all DB attack ellipses into circles, like on the GZ.

 

To properly address the skill gap problem, you have to address where the skill gap expresses itself most profoundly, which is in executing manual attacks by all three plane types.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
[WOLF2]
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
21 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Why is (1) actually a problem for the game as a whole? 

Your (2) is actually perfectly my point: better CVs don't lose their planes much already. So that would primarily benefit CV players who aren't as good.

1 isn't bad for the game as a whole, I was just pointing out how extreme the change is.

As for 2, the issue lies in when the planes are lost. Unicums still get their strikes off, where as lesser players wouldn't. And if the planes don't live long enough to get a strike off, them what's the point? Imagine giving a Hosho 200 planes, but making it tier 10. It'll never go through those reserves, but it'll be able to strike anyone either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,244
[SCCC]
Members
1,132 posts
5,571 battles

 

2 hours ago, enderland07 said:
  1. Increase non-USN destroyer AA when manually focusing planes by an additional 10%

 

Defensive fire multiplier is already at a staggering x4 buff to DPS...:cap_rambo:

Edited by FayFay731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,874 battles
31 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I disagree, Ender.

The things needed to address the skill gap are things like the following.

1. Remove fighter strafing.

2. If that's not enough, remove manual TB and DB attacks.  In compensation, perhaps consider reducing the size of the DB attack ellipses as well as tightening up the TB spreads for auto attacks.

3. If that's not enough, perhaps turn all DB attack ellipses into circles, like on the GZ.

 

To properly address the skill gap problem, you have to address where the skill gap expresses itself most profoundly, which is in executing manual attacks by all three plane types.

While we're at it, let's make everyone always spotted, give icons where shells will land directly after they are fired, and make sure torpedoes have a bright pink arrow pointing at them.  That way we can eliminate skill gaps in every part of World of Warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
3 minutes ago, _V12 said:

While we're at it, let's make everyone always spotted, give icons where shells will land directly after they are fired, and make sure torpedoes have a bright pink arrow pointing at them.  That way we can eliminate skill gaps in every part of World of Warships.

From the amount of whine threads in regards to everything, I'm amazed no one has seriously suggested it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
678
[MIA-A]
Members
1,971 posts
6,570 battles
39 minutes ago, FayFay731 said:

 

Defensive fire multiplier is already at a staggering x4 buff to DPS...:cap_rambo:

The overwhelming majority of destroyers than can run defAA are USN, which I specifically excluded from that 10% boost.

 

1 hour ago, Crucis said:

To properly address the skill gap problem, you have to address where the skill gap expresses itself most profoundly, which is in executing manual attacks by all three plane types.

 

That's just not true.

The problem isn't that one player can strafe all another players planes. It's that they can strafe another player's planes (removing all fighters, for example) and then effectively roflstomp people

 

Also, it probably should go without saying that CV rewards should be dramatically increased as part of this change (perhaps 3x'ed? more than doubled at least). 

Edited by enderland07
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
59 minutes ago, _V12 said:

While we're at it, let's make everyone always spotted, give icons where shells will land directly after they are fired, and make sure torpedoes have a bright pink arrow pointing at them.  That way we can eliminate skill gaps in every part of World of Warships.

Says a person who is part of the problem.  The problem isn't that there is a skill gap.  The problem is that the way that carrier play is currently implemented exacerbates the skill gap to the point that skilled players ROFL stomp on anyone who isn't anywhere close to their skill level.

In regular ships, this problem doesn't exist.  Good players are still good and lesser players are still weaker.  But the gap is not as profound.  And THAT is the problem with the CV skill gap.  But you're too invested in not wanting to allow weaker CV players having any chance of playing well.  You just want to protect your little grape colored fiefdom, come hell or high water.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×