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

Do you agree, CV's need to put some "Skin in the Game"? (Rework - Unlimited Planes)

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

283
[ADOPT]
[ADOPT]
Members
883 posts
2,676 battles

Please post below if you agree CV's need to take some risk for dealing damage in this rework coming up.

I suggest planes should have limited ranges and the larger & more powerful the ordnance you drop the shorter your range should be.

(CV's Stealth Fire with no gun bloom from planes - Base Detection is between 8-16km / How about 15km range for heavy ordnance and 30km for light?)

Post if you agree...

Edited by SJ_Sailer
Clarification of Topic
  • Cool 7
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[CSM]
[CSM]
Members
481 posts
5,000 battles

Sounds reasonable, I could never understand why a CV's planes can be up there the entire match but my cat figher or spotter can only manage a couple of minutes.

Maybe the crew should put more than a teaspoon of fuel in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[OKM]
Members
472 posts
3,307 battles

Not a great idea: CV aren't controlled the majority of the time.

 

Just make a hangar with a capacity again, be it higher than before. It will force CV player to play well and reward AA spec ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,858
[WOLFG]
Members
6,252 posts
4,146 battles
1 minute ago, DarkStormy said:

 

Maybe the crew should put more than a teaspoon of fuel in it.

They are using the rest to run their still.

Close enough to be visible and in BB range?

I don't know about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,771
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,579 posts
18,038 battles

CVs do risk being damaged! Currently the planes a limited! Once out of planes a CV can no longer damage opponents except with short range secondaries or ramming. CV planes also have limited fuel, if they didn't they would not crash after their CV is killed. CVs are also limited in the number of strikes they can make in 20 minutes. The farther away the target is the longer the round trip takes and even longer if the CV Captain takes the scenic route. BBs can get a salvo of every 30 seconds or so, CAs and DDs even quicker and do not run out of ammo. As long as they have a target in range they can fire from first contact until the battle ends. CVs can get a maybe 4 or 5 strikes launched in 20 minutes and at most 6. 

Of course there are those CV players, even in co op that run from the action as fast and as far as they can and never even try to advance or take a cap!

I only CV in co op and I have never hesitated to go in harms way to cap or just to draw fire.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
1 hour ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Please post below if you agree CV's need to take some risk for dealing damage? 

I suggest planes should have limited ranges and the larger & more powerful the ordnance you drop the shorter your range should be.

Post if you agree...

Agreed.


Here are the issues that make balance so broken, even without CVs in the equation. Risk vs Reward in WoWs is so out of whack for every ship type except most cruisers. Risk vs Reward is a fundamental ratio that must be balanced in general when concerning action vs consequence. It is what EVERY other game company basically uses as a general principle.

Examples: CVs. Able to sit far away from any battle, concealed and out of range. At the same time are rewarded GREATLY. This equates to  LOW RISK : HIGH REWARD.  That makes CVs factually and irrefutably overpowered. The rework does not change this ratio. This rework actually LOWERS the risk, due to automated consumables, less DoT time, automated fighter systems, AND unlimited planes. Yet the reward is STILL high.  The rework simply lowered the burst damage *potential* of CVs but increased the sustained damage.

Another Example: BBs.  Highest HP standard. Highest armor standard. Most protected citadel. Most ships with underwater citadel. Highest TDS values. Overall best healing..... on the same platform as highest burst damage potential (2nd only to pre-rework CVs), LONGEST range, highest pen values and still accurate. LOW RISK : HIGH REWARD.

and another Example: DDs.  Lowest HP standard. Lowest armor standard. Easiest to destroy weapons, maneuvering systems and modules. Weak or no healing, shortest range. Burst damage weapon system also has LOWEST hit rate in the game (6-8%) and 2nd for lowest damage caused server wide but get highest concealment and for the most part, maneuverability standard. DDs as a ship type have the most direct counters against them by far.  HIGH RISK : LOW REWARD

Low risk should always equate to Low reward just as High risk should always equate to High reward.


What needs to be solved and how to solve it?

- Fix Risk vs Reward. CVs should be weaker in effect or AA should be stupid strong *when specced* by any ship. BBs should need to get much closer to achieve the same effect they do now. DDs should get more offensive reliability without reducing risk

- Either massively nerf, or gut the entire concealment system (even shared spotting is garbage). Either make shells on CAs and BBs slower, or less accurate, or make CAs and DDs more maneuverable. Dodging should be far more dependable, with less dependency on invisibility. I believe this would fix a lot of issues and make balancing much simpler if the game was more about skillfully dodging than hiding (just like BBs should be tanking)




Think about attributes as a trade-off.
The minotaur sacrifices EHP, ARMOR, CITADEL, AND RANGE for concealment.
The Moskva/Stalin sacrifice Maneuverability, Reload, Citadel, and concealment FOR armor that is higher than normal cruisers but still LOWER than BBs. FOR HP that is higher than normal cruisers but still LOWER than BBs. For Guns that are still LOWER than BBs.
Even the Khaba makes almost the SAME tradeoff, and there are many examples of other ships as well.

What about the same trade-off for BBs? 
You have BBs with SIMILAR, SAME, and in some cases EVEN BETTER concealment than Cruisers. Yet sacrifice NOTHING. Why doesn't the Conq, for example, have much smaller guns with much smaller damage, high citadel, etc??

Then you have the Zao.. again.. trades just about nothing unlike the minotaur... and the Zao actually has BETTER torpedoes than more than HALF of the DDs in the same tier... If it is okay for Zao to have 12km torps it is perfectly justified for even the Khaba to have 12km torps.


Double-Standards.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,175
[NLIST]
Beta Testers
1,459 posts
13,932 battles

@kynxudl How can you be a beta tester and only have 137 battles?

I think your wall of text is pretty biased and not particularly accurate.  I'd give it more credence if you actually looked like you played the game without hiding your record - it's hard to tell what ships you have actually played....

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
4 minutes ago, BiggieD61 said:

@kynxudl How can you be a beta tester and only have 137 battles?

I think your wall of text is pretty biased and not particularly accurate.  I'd give it more credence if you actually looked like you played the game without hiding your record - it's hard to tell what ships you have actually played....

and there us the crux of your problem. You claim that it is biased and not "particularly" accurate, yet are unable to specify nor cite any sources. You also immediately attempted to look up my stats as well and think such would have ANY effect whatsoever on what is fact and what is not.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
550
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,093 posts
6,251 battles
1 hour ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Please post below if you agree CV's need to take some risk for dealing damage in this rework coming up.

I suggest planes should have limited ranges and the larger & more powerful the ordnance you drop the shorter your range should be.

(CV's Stealth Fire with no gun bloom from planes - Base Detection is between 8-16km / How about 15km range for heavy ordnance and 30km for light?)

Post if you agree...

You are not understanding one of the primary reasons for the rework.

To make CV's LESS COMPLICATED to operate.

Have you played on the test server yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ADOPT]
[ADOPT]
Members
883 posts
2,676 battles
1 minute ago, hipcanuck said:

You are not understanding one of the primary reasons for the rework.

To make CV's LESS COMPLICATED to operate.

Have you played on the test server yet?

I have and was part of the initial testing.  What does that have to do with my point of giving planes a limited range like ships currently do with the map?  They fly so far and then hit a barrier like exists in the map for ships.  Seems simple to me.  Your mini map shows a range for guns and a range for torps, why not the same for planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
11 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

I have and was part of the initial testing.  What does that have to do with my point of giving planes a limited range like ships currently do with the map?  They fly so far and then hit a barrier like exists in the map for ships.  Seems simple to me.  Your mini map shows a range for guns and a range for torps, why not the same for planes.

Maybe give them a fuel capacity.  Planes will automatically stop what they are doing and return to the carrier when they are at *point of no return*, with the ability to turn off/disregard this feature.  If a plane squadron runs out of fuel it automatically crashes and dies. Planes simply landing to refuel on a carrier merely suffer a GCD (Global cool down), NOT the normal cooldown suffered when planes are "respawning".  Could be as short as 1-2s.

Would be a perfect example of a *CORRECT* Risk vs Reward balance implemented. Users could ignore the low fuel to risk a kill on a low target (for example), but will sacrifice that squadron.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ADOPT]
[ADOPT]
Members
883 posts
2,676 battles
10 minutes ago, KnyxUDL said:

Maybe give them a fuel capacity.  Planes will automatically stop what they are doing and return to the carrier when they are at *point of no return*, with the ability to turn off/disregard this feature.  If a plane squadron runs out of fuel it automatically crashes and dies. Planes simply landing to refuel on a carrier merely suffer a GCD (Global cool down), NOT the normal cooldown suffered when planes are "respawning".  Could be as short as 1-2s.

Would be a perfect example of a *CORRECT* Risk vs Reward balance implemented. Users could ignore the low fuel to risk a kill on a low target (for example), but will sacrifice that squadron.

To quote an earlier poster, I think you may be making things a bit too complicated, but is sounds great anyway. 

If there was a fuel limit think how that would add skill to the game.  Those who line up their bombing runs quickly get to farther targets.  Those that fly around or perma spot lose their chance.  If you can't line up your run quickly you could run out of fuel before ever dropping a torpedo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
4 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

To quote an earlier poster, I think you may be making things a bit too complicated, but is sounds great anyway. 

If there was a fuel limit think how that would add skill to the game.  Those who line up their bombing runs quickly get to farther targets.  Those that fly around or perma spot lose their chance.  If you can't line up your run quickly you could run out of fuel before ever dropping a torpedo.

But it wouldn't make it more complicated in reality because the user has the *option* to keep the automatic return feature on (in my suggestion). Planes would simply stop what they are doing and return to the carrier when they reached the point of no return. For those unaware, the point of no return is when the fuel remaining is just enough to return to originating point (the CV). The fuel capacity could simply be made low enough that these new CVs are not able to continuously strafe ships over and over, therein reducing the reward to match the extremely low risk. The user would have the option to turn off the automated return feature and if their squadron passed the point of no return, it would mean the squadron would eventually die with nothing they can do about it.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,699
[RLGN]
Members
11,499 posts
20,433 battles
2 hours ago, BiggieD61 said:

How can you be a beta tester and only have 137 battles?

Maybe when some of these self-righteous players who cry about risk-reward, and how OP carriers are have as many TOTAL battles as I have in carriers alone, never mind  most of my individual carriers; and MAYBE have some understanding of their limitations; perhaps then I’ll grant  more weight to their kvetching.

As far as looking someone’s stats up are concerned; my experience has been that the biggest complainers; screetching the most about ‘Sky Cancer,’ have the least practical understanding of the class.

Are there issues with carriers? No doubt; as much as I personally dislike the rework; it will address some of them, but I doubt it will really change some player’s attitudes.

As the saying goes;

’Haters gonna’ hate.’

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
714
[90TH]
Members
1,724 posts
10,757 battles

I wish we could play one of those bases on the islands what do you think about that brohans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ADOPT]
[ADOPT]
Members
883 posts
2,676 battles
4 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Maybe when some of these self-righteous players who cry about risk-reward, and how OP carriers are have as as many TOTAL battles as I have in carriers alone, never mind  most of my individual carriers; and MAYBE have some understanding of their limitations; perhaps then I’ll grant  more weight to their kvetching.

As far as looking someone’s stats up are concerned; my experience has been that the biggest complainers; screetching the most about ‘Sky Cancer,’ have the least practical understanding of the class.

Are there issues with carriers? No doubt; as much as I personally dislike the rework; it will address some of them, but I doubt it will really change some player’s attitudes.

As the saying goes;

’Haters gonna’ hate.’

Hard to disagree with comments above but what was your opinion on the premise or merits of giving planes a limited range so that CV's must remain closer to the action instead of in the corner immune from return attacks.  It is only a suggestion and an opinion.  No complaining or screeching here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
17 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Maybe when some of these self-righteous players who cry about risk-reward, and how OP carriers are have as as many TOTAL battles as I have in carriers alone, never mind  most of my individual carriers; and MAYBE have some understanding of their limitations; perhaps then I’ll grant  more weight to their kvetching.

As far as looking someone’s stats up are concerned; my experience has been that the biggest complainers; screetching the most about ‘Sky Cancer,’ have the least practical understanding of the class.

Are there issues with carriers? No doubt; as much as I personally dislike the rework; it will address some of them, but I doubt it will really change some player’s attitudes.

As the saying goes;

’Haters gonna’ hate.’

You seem to think your experience in carriers have anything to do with objective fact.

There is no "crying" about risk vs reward. That is a fundamental ratio that of which balancing equates to balance in game. No need for your clearly emotional over-defensiveness just because CVs are in fact, low risk- high reward. Every ship in the game should be balanced in regards to risk vs reward, and CVs are not the only ones in need of fixing in that regard.

Again, looking up stats and stat shaming is a desperate attempt by those without a concise and coherent argument. Might as well be waving a proverbial white flag in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,699
[RLGN]
Members
11,499 posts
20,433 battles
12 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Hard to disagree with comments above but what was your opinion on the premise or merits of giving planes a limited range so that CV's must remain closer to the action instead of in the corner immune from return attacks.  It is only a suggestion and an opinion.  No complaining or screeching here.

Fair enough.

New system addresses that to an extent in that if you actually attack, planes auto return to the carrier. The only way to permaspot is to not attack. As well, deception by flight direction is no longer possible. An astute player will know by how planes ‘return’ generally where a carrier is.

(Bloody hell, wish they’d show us how many votes we have, otherwise +1.)

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ADOPT]
[ADOPT]
Members
883 posts
2,676 battles
10 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Fair enough.

New system addresses that to an extent in that if you actually attack, planes auto return to the carrier. The only way to permaspot is to not attack. As well, deception by flight direction is no longer possible. An astute player will know by how planes ‘return’ generally where a carrier is.

(Bloody hell, wish they’d show us how many votes we have, otherwise +1.)

All true and I appreciate your opinions as someone who plays CV's a lot.  (I do not, found it too hard to multi-task in old style, and boring new style).

BUT, back to my original point...Do you feel giving planes a limited range would encourage CV's to stay closer to the action where those they attack have a chance to return fire instead of being immune to return fire.

You can say it is a dumb idea, I will not be offended, just like to hear different opinions.  Sometimes things come up that I never considered, most time things come up that I never considered.

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
21 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Fair enough.

New system addresses that to an extent in that if you actually attack, planes auto return to the carrier. The only way to permaspot is to not attack. As well, deception by flight direction is no longer possible. An astute player will know by how planes ‘return’ generally where a carrier is.

(Bloody hell, wish they’d show us how many votes we have, otherwise +1.)

When you attack the planes do not auto return to the carrier (in the new version). You are able to make multiple strafes, unlike the current version where all ordinance is expended on a single attack run.

Proper risk vs reward, like a fuel system would be essentially saying: "Okay, you CAN make a bunch of strafes per squadron, BUT they will eventually crash and die due to not having enough fuel to make it back to rearm"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,767
[-TXT-]
Beta Testers
4,380 posts
13,174 battles

Sure, put range, and remove the aa's and make cv be able to atack you ever 3~25seconds like a "normal" ship.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,699
[RLGN]
Members
11,499 posts
20,433 battles
5 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

BUT, back to my original point...Do you feel giving planes a limited range would encourage CV's to stay closer to the action where those they attack have a chance to return fire instead of being immune to return fire.

In theory? I suppose nothing wrong with that. As a practical matter? Maybe not so much.

Carrier antipathy is such that there might be a brief, violent, mutal truce early in the game; after which things would proceed ‘normally.’ :Smile_teethhappy:

Not that some would mind, I’m sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,175
[NLIST]
Beta Testers
1,459 posts
13,932 battles
1 hour ago, KnyxUDL said:

and there us the crux of your problem. You claim that it is biased and not "particularly" accurate, yet are unable to specify nor cite any sources. You also immediately attempted to look up my stats as well and think such would have ANY effect whatsoever on what is fact and what is not.

 

Dude, I have NO idea whether your stats are hidden or not, I assumed they were because you were a beta tester with only 137 battles.   If you had explained why there is this discrepancy it would have gone to your credibility.  See, credibility is earned by being able to say " Well, I may only be a XX% win rate player, but I have x thousand battles in this or that ship class, and I am familiar with the tier 10 meta because ..." 

So my point is, you throw out a LOT of OPINION and CONJECTURE about HOW the game SHOULD work, but how I can give you any credibility for these opinions when for all I know you have only played those 137 games?  Your reply was 100% defensive and accusatory which makes me think you probably are one of those guys who talks a great game but really doesn't understand as well as he thinks he does.

I didn't bother countering your opinions because I have more interesting things to do than debate game mechanics with a guy who might not actually understand how to play the game optimally, but has a PhD in Internet Lawyering.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ADOPT]
[ADOPT]
Members
883 posts
2,676 battles
5 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

In theory? I suppose nothing wrong with that. As a practical matter? Maybe not so much.

Carrier antipathy is such that there might be a brief, violent, mutal truce early in the game; after which things would proceed ‘normally.’ :Smile_teethhappy:

Not that some would mind, I’m sure.

I look at CV's like big Destroyers with extra HP, they both live and die with concealment.  The second a DD is spotted your priority target goes up to 6 and you are instant deleted.  The same is true for CV's probably more so since you get more points for sinking a CV than a DD.   But a DD has to risk life and limb to get close to a BB in order to do any damage.  Yes you can fire a torp from 8-10km but as slow as they are if the BB makes even a tiny course correction you miss.  A CV does not have to risk anything, they are usually the last ship to be sunk in any battle far out in the margins.

The closer you get, the better your chance of success and the better your chance of getting deleted is.  It is even worse with Cruisers.  I am just thinking there should be some easy way to bring that same type of play to CV's also. 

I believe many non-CV players have a real issue with CV's being immune from return fire, but I could be wrong.  Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
550
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,093 posts
6,251 battles
1 hour ago, KnyxUDL said:

Maybe give them a fuel capacity.  Planes will automatically stop what they are doing and return to the carrier when they are at *point of no return*, with the ability to turn off/disregard this feature.  If a plane squadron runs out of fuel it automatically crashes and dies. Planes simply landing to refuel on a carrier merely suffer a GCD (Global cool down), NOT the normal cooldown suffered when planes are "respawning".  Could be as short as 1-2s.

Would be a perfect example of a *CORRECT* Risk vs Reward balance implemented. Users could ignore the low fuel to risk a kill on a low target (for example), but will sacrifice that squadron.

The fuel solution was proposed in CBT, the answer was the all too often "overcomplicated", "not a simulation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×