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

Add altitude to cv

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts

WG there is no time line for the CV rework. Everyone just wants it done right. Please add altitude to the game play.

The DB just do not work. They go up a tiny bit then go down. Its just not emerisive. If you could make them go up to 10k at least that would make it so much better.

Also give us fighter control.  I know you want it to focus of bombing but what if I want to fly around and shoot down planes? You might not think its fun but some of us do.

I know this rework is for consol and mobile. But if your going to do it please go all the way and do it right! 

Also do an entire tech tree!

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[TBOW]
Members
1,885 posts
12,851 battles

I want Altitude Control too, but for a different reason, to help with dodging AA and fighters.  Sorry planes don't just Turn Left and Right.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[FYL]
Members
671 posts
2,685 battles

I'm sure their inevitable space game will go with a Warhammer 40k fantasy-style locally flat spacetime field as opposed to the more fun 3-dimensional space found in space sims and RTS like Homeworld, but it kind of negates the cool aspects of space in the exact same way removing dynamic maneuvers from aircraft does - its literally a flattening of their potential. It's like the sci fi op they had that one time - it looks cool, but its still just a reskin of naval combat.

Its kind of fun when Star Trek games do flat spacetime though.

Edited by Tanuvein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[USFTW]
Members
196 posts
2,031 battles

Devs take note

Altitude control and manual flack control would give the rework the depth it needs

Don't rush it, get it right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
30 minutes ago, AtomicMan3 said:

Devs take note

Altitude control and manual flack control would give the rework the depth it needs

Don't rush it, get it right

Manual flak would be fantastic!

WG go big or go home!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[USFTW]
Members
196 posts
2,031 battles
24 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

Manual flak would be fantastic!

WG go big or go home!!!!

One of the most frustrating things about the old CV was the feeling of helplessness.

It felt like your life was out of your hands and there was nothing you could do to prevent a strike.

That is not a good feeling to have in a multiplayer PvP game wg.

Even if it was just a placebo, manual flack would give the feeling of defending yourself would make the game much better.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[S-N-D]
[S-N-D]
Members
2,437 posts
6,657 battles
33 minutes ago, AtomicMan3 said:

One of the most frustrating things about the old CV was the feeling of helplessness.

It felt like your life was out of your hands and there was nothing you could do to prevent a strike.

That is not a good feeling to have in a multiplayer PvP game wg.

Even if it was just a placebo, manual flack would give the feeling of defending yourself would make the game much better.

That's war. You don't get an out for every situation. Game or real is irrelevant as the game is based on recreating naval engagements in a plausible manner. Having a method to completely defend against a CV is not an acceptable request. Ships didn't have that in real life nor would it make good gameplay. AA removes some of the threat but not all. I can only assume any suggestion for manual control of flak is intent on allowing full removal of the threat.

Edited by _Caliph_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,220 posts
2,399 battles

All that would do is make using them more challenging to use which is not the direction WG is aiming for with the rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[S-N-D]
[S-N-D]
Members
2,437 posts
6,657 battles

They could make high altitude reduce visibility by 50% but reduce attack duration by 50%. So you trade accuracy for safety. Though it would affect certain situations it would still be effectively able to make transiting safer while only delaying a full accuracy attack run. But that's somewhat realistic anyway.

Edited by _Caliph_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
13 minutes ago, _Caliph_ said:

They could make high altitude reduce visibility by 50% but reduce attack duration by 50%. So you trade accuracy for safety. Though it would affect certain situations it would still be effectively able to make transiting safer while only delaying a full accuracy attack run. But that's somewhat realistic anyway.

Great idea. Reality it should increase spotting but for game sake I see your idea.

So many wonderful ideas and what are we going to get?

Left right no cv control...:( 

Please WG listen to the public here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[USFTW]
Members
196 posts
2,031 battles
17 minutes ago, _Caliph_ said:

as the game is based on recreating naval engagements in a plausible manner

Are we taking about the same game here???

Also I asked for something to defend my ship from airstrikes, even if it was mostly a placebo real ships had aa that was controlled by people not RNG.

No one is asking for a complete removal of the threat of cvs, but rather the ability to have some sort of counterplay to them that involves skill. Every other ship in the game can counter other ships in a way that factors in player skill, why should cvs be any different? 

Avoiding aa directed by a real player would make CV play more rewarding, and would allow them to punish oblivious targets. 

You seem to think I want to make CVs weaker but I want them to be able to punish oblivious ships. The cvs would obviously need tweaks to balance them but I do not see this as being a nerf, but rather a way to add more skill on all sides of the equation.

This would make aa escort a much more interesting role, as you could actually do what you speced into rather then having RNG do it for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,039
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,028 posts
9,347 battles
1 hour ago, jags_domain said:

Manual flak would be fantastic!

WG go big or go home!!!!

when you say "manual flak" do you mean like in Battlestations Pacific or in WT's naval battles?

^^^ timestampped where the manual AA comes in

because if you mean manual AA like THAT, then YES id LOVE to see that in WOWS

it could be the usual 1 for HE, 2 for AP, 3 for torps(if you have them) and 4 for control over the AA guns

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
4 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

when you say "manual flak" do you mean like in Battlestations Pacific or in WT's naval battles?

^^^ timestampped where the manual AA comes in

Battle might be better but I will take either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[S-N-D]
[S-N-D]
Members
2,437 posts
6,657 battles
5 minutes ago, AtomicMan3 said:

Are we taking about the same game here???

Also I asked for something to defend my ship from airstrikes, even if it was mostly a placebo real ships had aa that was controlled by people not RNG.

No one is asking for a complete removal of the threat of cvs, but rather the ability to have some sort of counterplay to them that involves skill. Every other ship in the game can counter other ships in a way that factors in player skill, why should cvs be any different? 

Avoiding aa directed by a real player would make CV play more rewarding, and would allow them to punish oblivious targets. 

You seem to think I want to make CVs weaker but I want them to be able to punish oblivious ships. The cvs would obviously need tweaks to balance them but I do not see this as being a nerf, but rather a way to add more skill on all sides of the equation.

This would make aa escort a much more interesting role, as you could actually do what you speced into rather then having RNG do it for you.

 

Not quite. Having AA aimed manually would make attack runs nigh impossible as a plane maneuverability will not match an opponents speed at aiming guns. From there assuming it only did a portion of damage the next argument would be "why are planes I'm hitting not blowing up?".

We now have one squad to control in CVs which means negating an attack under that setup would be trivial. They can not make the planes hard to hit as it would directly correspond with how difficult they are to control and aim for the CV.

You do have something to help defend against CVs. You have AA guns, teammates, active maneuvering, and sector defense.

Noting that you want CVs to "punish oblivious ships" is a synonym to "not punish aware ships". That goes back to having full protection from CVs. When the option to fully protect oneself from CVs has a repeatable "to do list" for success then everyone will do it and the CV will no longer be a threat. There simply is no such thing as an unaware ship in a CV battle unless they are AFK. Nor should you be safe just because you focus attention on the CVs planes. One is not safe from a BB just because they monitor and maneuver to make shots difficult. One can aim and fire in such a manner that no matter what option for evasion is chosen something will hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
14 minutes ago, _Caliph_ said:

Not quite. Having AA aimed manually would make attack runs nigh impossible as a plane maneuverability will not match an opponents speed at aiming guns. From there assuming it only did a portion of damage the next argument would be "why are planes I'm hitting not blowing up?".

We now have one squad to control in CVs which means negating an attack under that setup would be trivial. They can not make the planes hard to hit as it would directly correspond with how difficult they are to control and aim for the CV.

You do have something to help defend against CVs. You have AA guns, teammates, active maneuvering, and sector defense.

Noting that you want CVs to "punish oblivious ships" is a synonym to "not punish aware ships". That goes back to having full protection from CVs. When the option to fully protect oneself from CVs has a repeatable "to do list" for success then everyone will do it and the CV will no longer be a threat. There simply is no such thing as an unaware ship in a CV battle unless they are AFK. Nor should you be safe just because you focus attention on the CVs planes. One is not safe from a BB just because they monitor and maneuver to make shots difficult. One can aim and fire in such a manner that no matter what option for evasion is chosen something will hit.

I have blabed plenty of random bb sailing by them selves.

I see your poinr with manual but it should be an option. Most people I do not feel would use it as they would be focused on shooting ships and not planes but having the option could be cool.

Imamagion taking your atlanta and training all your 5 inchers to the strike.

Anyone one else want to use all 6 planes instead of 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
1 hour ago, _Caliph_ said:

That's war. You don't get an out for every situation. Game or real is irrelevant as the game is based on recreating naval engagements in a plausible manner. Having a method to completely defend against a CV is not an acceptable request. Ships didn't have that in real life nor would it make good gameplay. AA removes some of the threat but not all. I can only assume any suggestion for manual control of flak is intent on allowing full removal of the threat.

not remove but make it more interesting or at least having the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,821 posts
4,578 battles
4 hours ago, Tanuvein said:

I'm sure their inevitable space game will go with a Warhammer 40k fantasy-style locally flat spacetime field as opposed to the more fun 3-dimensional space found in space sims and RTS like Homeworld, but it kind of negates the cool aspects of space in the exact same way removing dynamic maneuvers from aircraft does - its literally a flattening of their potential. It's like the sci fi op they had that one time - it looks cool, but its still just a reskin of naval combat.

Its kind of fun when Star Trek games do flat spacetime though.

Ultimately full 3D space games don't make much sense from a gameplay perspective, in either RTS or action game formats(you can kind of manage in a RTT format). There's simply too many options in terms of controlling your direction and facing to be practical. It tends to overwhelm players and be difficult to handle. Ultimately it doesn't add much to gameplay but makes interface and control design a lot harder.

3D games make sense if you're building a flight sim/fighter game, or you're mostly automating ship control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[USFTW]
Members
196 posts
2,031 battles
12 minutes ago, _Caliph_ said:

Not quite. Having AA aimed manually would make attack runs nigh impossible as a plane maneuverability will not match an opponents speed at aiming guns. From there assuming it only did a portion of damage the next argument would be "why are planes I'm hitting not blowing up?".

We now have one squad to control in CVs which means negating an attack under that setup would be trivial. They can not make the planes hard to hit as it would directly correspond with how difficult they are to control and aim for the CV.

You do have something to help defend against CVs. You have AA guns, teammates, active maneuvering, and sector defense.

Noting that you want CVs to "punish oblivious ships" is a synonym to "not punish aware ships". That goes back to having full protection from CVs. When the option to fully protect oneself from CVs has a repeatable "to do list" for success then everyone will do it and the CV will no longer be a threat. There simply is no such thing as an unaware ship in a CV battle unless they are AFK. Nor should you be safe just because you focus attention on the CVs planes. One is not safe from a BB just because they monitor and maneuver to make shots difficult. One can aim and fire in such a manner that no matter what option for evasion is chosen something will hit.

CV planes would need an maneuverability buff, and flack shells would need a longer arm time and many other balance changes for this to be viable, I certainly don't want this to go into the flack as it currently is

I would see it as less shooting at the planes but more laying a minefield, trying to anticipate the cvs next move. It would be like shooting at a dd in a bb at long range, in that you need to get in their head and think one step ahead of them if you want any chance of hitting.

The issue with these as counters is that they require very little skill, the sector system is a start but doesn't do enough.

Every other ship can punish oblivious opponents, but this doesn't mean they are incapable of hurting aware opponents. It's the difference between a 20k broadside hit and 3k in bow on superstructure over pens. Letting CVs to be able to punish oblivious targets doesn't make them incapable of punishing aware ones, rather I want it to be in a state were against aware targets CVs do damage like what they do now, but can do much more against oblivious ones.  Letting CVs punish oblivious targets and letting them do fair damage against aware ones in not incompatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[USFTW]
Members
196 posts
2,031 battles
16 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

I have blabed plenty of random bb sailing by them selves.

I see your poinr with manual but it should be an option. Most people I do not feel would use it as they would be focused on shooting ships and not planes but having the option could be cool.

Imamagion taking your atlanta and training all your 5 inchers to the strike.

Anyone one else want to use all 6 planes instead of 2?

The problem with a full strike like this is that you could just use one squadron to execute full strike and then different squander to do the same thing, letting you put out massive damage in a ridiculously short amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[FYL]
Members
671 posts
2,685 battles

 

6 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Ultimately full 3D space games don't make much sense from a gameplay perspective, in either RTS or action game formats(you can kind of manage in a RTT format). There's simply too many options in terms of controlling your direction and facing to be practical. It tends to overwhelm players and be difficult to handle. Ultimately it doesn't add much to gameplay but makes interface and control design a lot harder.

3D games make sense if you're building a flight sim/fighter game, or you're mostly automating ship control.

 

I think Homeworld's method would work, for a single ship or full armada. Basically you operate on a 2 dimensional plane, but if you hold control you can get a circular indicator the size of your ship and drop it or raise it to the plane you want to set - which extended from top to bottom and of the map well outside of the realistic bounds of combat, especially since satellite asteroids and gas pockets played similar to islands in this game. If you moved to attack another craft, you would automatically switch to the proper angle for fire intersection while still focusing control either on the horizontal or vertical movement if your ships. Coming from underneath is really cool because most ships didn't have lots of belly turrets and ambushing from above or below was one of the best ways to catch someone off guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,821 posts
4,578 battles
2 minutes ago, Tanuvein said:

I think Homeworld's method would work, for a single ship or full armada. Basically you operate on a 2 dimensional plane, but if you hold control you can get a circular indicator the size of your ship and drop it or raise it to the plane you want to set - which extended from top to bottom and of the map well outside of the realistic bounds of combat, especially since satellite asteroids and gas pockets played similar to islands in this game. If you moved to attack another craft, you would automatically switch to the proper angle for fire intersection while still focusing control either on the horizontal or vertical movement if your ships. Coming from underneath is really cool because most ships didn't have lots of belly turrets and ambushing from above or below was one of the best ways to catch someone off guard.

Homeworld's system worked but ultimately you'll note that the vast majority of homeworld maps(especially HW2) were primarily flat, and for good reason. Confusing players isn't good gameplay, and even when Homeworld's system worked it sometimes ended up moving ships places you didn't want(and any sort of fine-grained control was impossible, meaning it had to be left to AI).

The bigger issue is that all of this complexity didn't really buy Homeworld great commercial success or gameplay excellence. It's a well-remembered game, but there hasn't been a huge demand for games like it since. Any sort of complexity costs time and effort, and I think it's hard to argue that that wouldn't be better spent designing the game's balance or improving its technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
18 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Ultimately full 3D space games don't make much sense from a gameplay perspective, in either RTS or action game formats(you can kind of manage in a RTT format). There's simply too many options in terms of controlling your direction and facing to be practical. It tends to overwhelm players and be difficult to handle. Ultimately it doesn't add much to gameplay but makes interface and control design a lot harder.

3D games make sense if you're building a flight sim/fighter game, or you're mostly automating ship control.

I am sorry but I am getting tired of "player fatghe" the idea that the game is so hard you cant play it. I had no problem controling 6 sq and now its so dumbed down that its bording on boring after a few rounds.

I think people are a lot smarter and capable than WG is giving us credit for. If it is not complicated it becomes boring and unplayable because there is no challange.

WG keeps aaying they want a wide player base when you do that you lose people that got you there because it's become somthing else. 

Its cheaper to keep a fan than to make a fan. Dont dumb the game down to get a mythical player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,821 posts
4,578 battles
21 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

I am sorry but I am getting tired of "player fatghe" the idea that the game is so hard you cant play it. I had no problem controling 6 sq and now its so dumbed down that its bording on boring after a few rounds.

I think people are a lot smarter and capable than WG is giving us credit for. If it is not complicated it becomes boring and unplayable because there is no challange.

WG keeps aaying they want a wide player base when you do that you lose people that got you there because it's become somthing else. 

Its cheaper to keep a fan than to make a fan. Dont dumb the game down to get a mythical player base.

WoWS is a free to play, random matchmaking, action game. This is not a genre conductive to supporting highly complex and demanding gameplay. If WoWS was a skill based long match(via respawns or slower pacing) game, or a singleplayer tactical command game, or an open world MMO, this sort of attitude would be appropriate. It isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SOV]
Members
2,873 posts
25 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

WoWS is a free to play, random matchmaking, action game. This is not a genre conductive to supporting highly complex and demanding gameplay. If WoWS was a skill based long match(via respawns or slower pacing) game, or a singleplayer tactical command game, or an open world MMO, this sort of attitude would be appropriate. It isn't.

The problem is the reason I started playing is its suppose to be. They advertise it as such so it should be.

Also we are trying to make the cv rework be interesting. Right now its starting to look like it will get very stale very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×