Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
pewpewpew42

Floatin an idea for the CV rework

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

791
[SF-A]
Members
2,948 posts
5,908 battles

As far as bombers go, could the bombing system be replaced with a limited variant of what WoWP does?

Roughly 2:20 if the link is being buggy.

This would reduce the capability to alpha-strike targets, and would encourage CVs to pursue DoT effects instead. Additionally, the new interface can be more skill-based, and could open up interesting traits, like accuracy circle, bombing altitude, etc. I like that the new method would require players to gauge lead, a key skill that would now carry over from all other ships. This would translate exceptionally well into attacking ground targets in the operations mode, and potentially if Bastion was ever brought back.

Obviously, you would need smooth controls to shift from the current RTS-style view into bombing runs, and a way for new AA mechanics to interact with it. You would also have to be limited to a certain time window to keep players going between squads. You wouldn't want people to spend five minutes piloting the squad back to the deck, so that could remain as is. Additionally, DBs would have steeper angles of attack than this.

Lastly, the developers from WoWP are on good terms (I think!) with the guys working on WoWP. This makes the process of developing such a mode significantly easier than if the system belonged to a rival developer.

It could be more complicated that the current idea, but if well-done and well-received, it would be worth it. I haven't thought through how this would work with TBs but it seems interesting for DBs at least.

Edited by pewpewpew42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,767 battles

These are not dive bombers.

 

As a side note. If the cv rework that is coming  could be something similar to wop that would be awesome.

Edited by _no_one_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[SF-A]
Members
2,948 posts
5,908 battles
4 minutes ago, _no_one_ said:

These are not dive bombers.

 

As a side note. If the cv rework that is coming  could be something similar to wop that would be awesome.

Fixed. It would definitely be a steeper angle than this clip.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[DUDE_]
Members
3,095 posts
13,145 battles

CV's are fine, the skill difference in those that play them is the problem.  Its not like any of our ships and an extra macro to make our shells go faster, or hit harder...but with CV's you can strafe, and manual drop and 1000's of players refuse to learn how to do it. Two unicoms or scrubs, doesn't matter, the skill set is similar 1 Unicom vs a scrub?

See the source image
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,767 battles
1 minute ago, pewpewpew42 said:

Fixed. It would definitely be a steeper angle than this clip.

Yes that would be awesome. Of course instead one plane you would fly a entire squadron in a tight formation. And it would take skill not RNG to score some hits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[5D]
Members
1,287 posts
7,597 battles
50 minutes ago, pewpewpew42 said:

would encourage CVs to pursue DoT effects instead.

I would adore the chance to pursue more dot based effects as a CV. The games where you're allowed to do that is when you can really stack up the damage counter.

 

The problem is that there is an overabundance of AA with only a single counter. Send in everything at once to overwhelm the AA.

 

However blob strikes are why we have to have strafe. It's the only way a CV can really stand a chance of protecting their fleet against blob attacks. 

 

Which results in strafe... and too much AA... so no seeking of dot damage but rather juke the strafes and get the strike off... save as many planes as you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,005
[SALVO]
Members
17,677 posts
18,485 battles
41 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

CV's are fine, the skill difference in those that play them is the problem.  Its not like any of our ships and an extra macro to make our shells go faster, or hit harder...but with CV's you can strafe, and manual drop and 1000's of players refuse to learn how to do it. Two unicoms or scrubs, doesn't matter, the skill set is similar 1 Unicom vs a scrub?

Stop assuming that it's a REFUSAL to learn.  Not everyone has the twitch response necessary to line up perfect bombing runs each and every time.  And if you fail to get it right the first time, you'll either have a terrible torp drop that misses the mark badly, or you lose even more planes trying to get a decent drop.  It's simply NOT as easy as aiming guns in a surface ship.

Furthermore, the skill difference is a result of the mechanics and the difficulty many have using them vs the extreme skill of those who are able to use them well.

On top of that, the very fact that at higher tiers, it's a 1 vs 1 thing.  1 CV vs 1 CV, and far too often, the outcome of the battle will hinge on the outcome of the CV battle.  Now, sometimes, the skill gap between the two players might not be too great, and the lesser player will be good enough to at least keep the enemy team's CV moderately at bay and give the rest of his team a chance to defeat the rest of the enemy team.  But sometimes, the CV player on one team will be utterly overwhelmed by the better CV player, and the battle will more often than not go to the team with the far better CV player.  All in all, this puts too much emphasis on the relative quality of the opposing CV players relative to the overall outcome of the battle.  But about the only way to improve that would be to increase the number of CVs per team from 1 to 2.  However, that would also just make life that much more miserable for the other 10 non-CV players on each team.

 

Who knows how the WG CV rework will play out?  Only time will tell.  But it may be that the only effective solution will be to remove carriers entirely.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,123 posts
11,529 battles

I think sinse wop is ... dead... and they wanna change the carrier gameplay for something more potato looks like they maaaaybe going merge wop and wows for carriers become boring a fps gameplay.

And if they do that probabily its going make BBs cry even more (hah imagine carriers with more precise aiming)

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[DUDE_]
Members
3,095 posts
13,145 battles
20 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Stop assuming that it's a REFUSAL to learn.  Not everyone has the twitch response necessary to line up perfect bombing runs each and every time.  And if you fail to get it right the first time, you'll either have a terrible torp drop that misses the mark badly, or you lose even more planes trying to get a decent drop.  It's simply NOT as easy as aiming guns in a surface ship.

Furthermore, the skill difference is a result of the mechanics and the difficulty many have using them vs the extreme skill of those who are able to use them well.

On top of that, the very fact that at higher tiers, it's a 1 vs 1 thing.  1 CV vs 1 CV, and far too often, the outcome of the battle will hinge on the outcome of the CV battle.  Now, sometimes, the skill gap between the two players might not be too great, and the lesser player will be good enough to at least keep the enemy team's CV moderately at bay and give the rest of his team a chance to defeat the rest of the enemy team.  But sometimes, the CV player on one team will be utterly overwhelmed by the better CV player, and the battle will more often than not go to the team with the far better CV player.  All in all, this puts too much emphasis on the relative quality of the opposing CV players relative to the overall outcome of the battle.  But about the only way to improve that would be to increase the number of CVs per team from 1 to 2.  However, that would also just make life that much more miserable for the other 10 non-CV players on each team.

 

Who knows how the WG CV rework will play out?  Only time will tell.  But it may be that the only effective solution will be to remove carriers entirely.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

I for one fall into the category of twitch response... I know what and how to do it, I just fail while attempting it. I would love to play cv, I just don't do it well, so I wont albatross my team by playing it. Additionally, if that was the type of game style I wanted to play, I am sure there are many other games that are much better at that genre.  I love the ships, the history and the big booms you get, so I play the ships.

I have played Warcraft for years, and the one thing I always liked was their arena system. Yu play similar teams according to your ranking... I was decent but not good, But I still had fun. If I knew I was to play another CV that was close to my skill level, I would play CV's. But I respect the other players to much to not play cv as my strafes rarely do what I want or my manual drops fail as I get to close.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,005
[SALVO]
Members
17,677 posts
18,485 battles
11 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

I for one fall into the category of twitch response... I know what and how to do it, I just fail while attempting it. I would love to play cv, I just don't do it well, so I wont albatross my team by playing it. Additionally, if that was the type of game style I wanted to play, I am sure there are many other games that are much better at that genre.  I love the ships, the history and the big booms you get, so I play the ships.

I have played Warcraft for years, and the one thing I always liked was their arena system. Yu play similar teams according to your ranking... I was decent but not good, But I still had fun. If I knew I was to play another CV that was close to my skill level, I would play CV's. But I respect the other players to much to not play cv as my strafes rarely do what I want or my manual drops fail as I get to close.  

My twitch response isn't all that bad.  And lining up DB attacks isn't that hard.  And if WG wanted to make it easier (if a bit less historical), they could go with those circular drop patterns that last I knew, the GZ used, which really take no effort to line up.  The real problem is lining up TB attacks, because there's no easy way to do those.  I suppose that the devs could develop an auto-drop model that was a lot tighter so that players didn't need to use manual drops.

Hmmm.  That might not have been such a bad idea.  Make auto TB drops a lot more effective, so that manual ones weren't required.  But keep the manual drops, not because they were needed but for those times when you wanted to, say, drop on a smoke cloud and had no target to lock onto.

I personally hate strafing.  I think that it's probably the biggest problem of all since it requires sooo damned much skill to pull off effective strafing attacks.  I'd rather that you just used the standard auto attacks with fighters, though I don't see why you should get completely locked up and immobile when a fighter squadron attacks your fighter squadron.  

Anyways, I rarely play my carriers in randoms.  I usually only play then in coop.  The biggest reason I keep them around is for when they do missions that require carriers to complete a task here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[DUDE_]
Members
3,095 posts
13,145 battles
18 minutes ago, Crucis said:

My twitch response isn't all that bad.  And lining up DB attacks isn't that hard.  And if WG wanted to make it easier (if a bit less historical), they could go with those circular drop patterns that last I knew, the GZ used, which really take no effort to line up.  The real problem is lining up TB attacks, because there's no easy way to do those.  I suppose that the devs could develop an auto-drop model that was a lot tighter so that players didn't need to use manual drops.

Hmmm.  That might not have been such a bad idea.  Make auto TB drops a lot more effective, so that manual ones weren't required.  But keep the manual drops, not because they were needed but for those times when you wanted to, say, drop on a smoke cloud and had no target to lock onto.

I personally hate strafing.  I think that it's probably the biggest problem of all since it requires sooo damned much skill to pull off effective strafing attacks.  I'd rather that you just used the standard auto attacks with fighters, though I don't see why you should get completely locked up and immobile when a fighter squadron attacks your fighter squadron.  

Anyways, I rarely play my carriers in randoms.  I usually only play then in coop.  The biggest reason I keep them around is for when they do missions that require carriers to complete a task here and there.

I think Cv's or planes should have less mobility and where they send their planes should be more strategic. If a cv is willing to send his planes over a cap and spot he should be rewarded. if a cv goes the full end around snipe attack and doesn't spot or help his team he should not get rewarded... If a CV guesses right, and pre....lets say has full guns in an area that was predetermined for a period of time...its much similar to Defensive fire or radar, or hydro.... Not a complete. smashing of an opponent because he cant strafe.....

 

If your were to watch the movie Midway, the US won the battle simply due to a float plane that was delayed and stumbled across the IJN fleet. he never fired a shot, but very easily won the Pacific ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,005
[SALVO]
Members
17,677 posts
18,485 battles
33 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

I think Cv's or planes should have less mobility and where they send their planes should be more strategic. If a cv is willing to send his planes over a cap and spot he should be rewarded. if a cv goes the full end around snipe attack and doesn't spot or help his team he should not get rewarded... If a CV guesses right, and pre....lets say has full guns in an area that was predetermined for a period of time...its much similar to Defensive fire or radar, or hydro.... Not a complete. smashing of an opponent because he cant strafe.....

 

If your were to watch the movie Midway, the US won the battle simply due to a float plane that was delayed and stumbled across the IJN fleet. he never fired a shot, but very easily won the Pacific ocean.

I have watched the movie Midway.  It wasn't … quite …  that simple, but you're not far off either.  It also didn't hurt that the TBs attacked early and accidentally drew the IJN fighters down from their patrols, so that when the DBs arrived shortly thereafter, they were unopposed and got their attack in cleanly and spanked 3 out of the 4 IJN CVs.  On top of that, one of the IJN scout planes had a bad radio.  The very plane that spotted a USN CV.  There was serendipity and just plain dumb luck (or the hand of God, if one happened to believe in that sort of thing) all over that battle.  

Of course, even with all the luck, the USN kind of made some of their own luck by cracking the IJN code and being away of the impending attack and making preparations, like having all those PBY's available for scouting without having to use scout planes from the carriers, etc.

The war in the Pacific certainly turned that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[SBS]
Members
2,816 posts
2,375 battles
2 hours ago, _no_one_ said:

Yes that would be awesome. Of course instead one plane you would fly a entire squadron in a tight formation. And it would take skill not RNG to score some hits. 

I'm with you.  I believe part of the rework of WoWP last year was to integrate that style of play into WoWs.  It would makes sense to get players from both games to share as similar play style to encourage ships players to to try planes, and vise versa.  Maximizing investment.    

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
769
[POD]
Beta Testers
3,058 posts
4,738 battles

pull a war thunder,our planes are controlled by wowp players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
409 posts
1,503 battles
3 hours ago, Sweetsie said:

CV's are fine, the skill difference in those that play them is the problem.  Its not like any of our ships and an extra macro to make our shells go faster, or hit harder...but with CV's you can strafe, and manual drop and 1000's of players refuse to learn how to do it. Two unicoms or scrubs, doesn't matter, the skill set is similar 1 Unicom vs a scrub?

I don't think blaming the players for bad parts of a game system leads to good fixes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[DRACS]
Members
3,606 posts

I'm fairly certain that the CV rework will have a third person wowp/wt style gameplay. Its the fine details and multiple squadron interplay aspects I'm in the dark about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[DUDE_]
Members
3,095 posts
13,145 battles
6 minutes ago, Kochira said:

I don't think blaming the players for bad parts of a game system leads to good fixes....

in a nutshell you mention the fail. the game is fine, the players are bad. Big difference.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
409 posts
1,503 battles
7 hours ago, Sweetsie said:

in a nutshell you mention the fail. the game is fine, the players are bad. Big difference.

Players are not a variable Devs can adjust. Any fixes must be applied to game mechanics to get the desired results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,168
[WGA]
Administrator, Developers
946 posts
6,295 battles

Ahoy Fleet,

Thanks for participating in this discussion thread.

The OP felt they had good feedback on the discussion and wanted to conclude it.

Many thanks to you all for keeping this discussion civil, constructive, and respectful for the community!

#anchorsaweigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×