Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Slimeball91

Fix the CV rework in three easy steps.

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,292
[SBS]
Members
3,466 posts
2,408 battles

For better or worse, the rework is coming.  I think there are going to be real balance issues with the game overall when CVs are in every match.  I have three ideas on how the biggest issues that I foresee might be fixed.  The core issues I see are, reduced concealment for surface ships across the board, CVs don't have to take the proper amount of risk to engage the enemy, and the lack of complexity/compelling game play with the reworked CVs.

Fix the CV rework in three easy steps:

1) This one is optional, limited hanger (plane limit).  Keep the current regeneration system but have a hard limit on planes.  I'm fine with reducing the regeneration/rearming time as a trade.  The limit doesn't need to be punitive, it should be balanced to be fair to all parties. 

2) Remove shared spotting for aircraft.  Have it so the ships aircraft spot only show up for the rest of the team on the mini map.  You could give planes a consumable that works sort of like radar.  This would allow the ships being spotted by the planes to be spotted by the rest of the team for a limited amount of time.  This would add some teamplay dynamic for CVs.

3) Player controlled fighters.  I know this one seems to be controversial, but it doesn't have to be balanced that way.  Its simple, balance fighters so that can't completely cancel out the opposing CV player's attacks.  You could have fighters only be able to shoot down half of a squadron, and/or make the rearming time for fighters longer than that of attack planes, that way it wouldn't be impossible to spam out fighters to cancel your opponent's attack.

4) Bonus fix.  Remove the priority sector and replace it with player (manual) controlled AA. 

 

Number one is self-explanatory.  The idea is CVs don't take enough risk to offset the rewards.  A hard plane limit would require some amount of resource management that would help balance risk vs. reward.  Again, this limit doesn't have to punitive.  

The point of number two is so we don't completely destroy the concealment game that so many ships depend on.  With shared spotting being a consumable there would be a new dynamic to encourage teamwork for the CV player.  This also adds complexity that should make for more compelling game play.

Number three, the player controlled fighters is also for a more dynamic/compelling play style, and to have your own CV be able to directly help mitigate the attack of the enemy CV.  This also adds to risk/reward and teamwork dynamic for CVs.  You'd still only control one squadron at a time so you would have to choose to defend or attack, not both at the same time.

Four, manual control of AA guns.  I know AA will be the biggest variable that gets tweaked so I consider this idea as optional as well.  I think the lack of meaningful/engaging interact between the surface ships and aircraft is an important element to why players are rejecting playing against CVs.  My idea would to have AA be AI controlled by default, but the player can take control as desired.  Manual control of the AA would give you a DPM boost somewhere between the priority sector and DFAA.  The big difference is that you can improve your AA defense with player skill.  That is a much needed element that is missing from the game. 

A plane limit and the removal of shared spotting WG could add in a very short amount of time.  Manual AA and player controlled fighters would take a bit more time, but still very manageable, say a couple of months.  This would push the rework back until the spring but I think it would give a much more overall balanced and enjoyable experience.  Your thoughts?      

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,756 posts
5,741 battles
13 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

For better or worse, the rework is coming.  I think there are going to be real balance issues with the game overall when CVs are in every match.  I have three ideas on how the biggest issues that I foresee might be fixed.  The core issues I see are, reduced concealment for surface ships across the board, CVs don't have to take the proper amount of risk to engage the enemy, and the lack of complexity/compelling game play with the reworked CVs.

Fix the CV rework in three easy steps:

1) This one is optional, limited hanger (plane limit).  Keep the current regeneration system but have a hard limit on planes.  I'm fine with reducing the regeneration/rearming time as a trade.  The limit doesn't need to be punitive, it should be balanced to be fair to all parties. 

2) Remove shared spotting for aircraft.  Have it so the ships aircraft spot only show up for the rest of the team on the mini map.  You could give planes a consumable that works sort of like radar.  This would allow the ships being spotted by the planes to be spotted by the rest of the team for a limited amount of time.  This would add some teamplay dynamic for CVs.

3) Player controlled fighters.  I know this one seems to be controversial, but it doesn't have to be balanced that way.  Its simple, balance fighters so that can't completely cancel out the opposing CV player's attacks.  You could have fighters only be able to shoot down half of a squadron, and/or make the rearming time for fighters longer than that of attack planes, that way it wouldn't be impossible to spam out fighters to cancel your opponent's attack.

4) Bonus fix.  Remove the priority sector and replace it with player (manual) controlled AA. 

 

Number one is self-explanatory.  The idea is CVs don't take enough risk to offset the rewards.  A hard plane limit would require some amount of resource management that would help balance risk vs. reward.  Again, this limit doesn't have to punitive.  

The point of number two is so we don't completely destroy the concealment game that so many ships depend on.  With shared spotting being a consumable there would be a new dynamic to encourage teamwork for the CV player.  This also adds complexity that should make for more compelling game play.

Number three, the player controlled fighters is also for a more dynamic/compelling play style, and to have your own CV be able to directly help mitigate the attack of the enemy CV.  This also adds to risk/reward and teamwork dynamic for CVs.  You'd still only control one squadron at a time so you would have to choose to defend or attack, not both at the same time.

Four, manual control of AA guns.  I know AA will be the biggest variable that gets tweaked so I consider this idea as optional as well.  I think the lack of meaningful/engaging interact between the surface ships and aircraft is an important element to why players are rejecting playing against CVs.  My idea would to have AA be AI controlled by default, but the player can take control as desired.  Manual control of the AA would give you a DPM boost somewhere between the priority sector and DFAA.  The big difference is that you can improve your AA defense with player skill.  That is a much needed element that is missing from the game. 

A plane limit and the removal of shared spotting WG could add in a very short amount of time.  Manual AA and player controlled fighters would take a bit more time, but still very manageable, say a couple of months.  This would push the rework back until the spring but I think it would give a much more overall balanced and enjoyable experience.  Your thoughts?      

 

WG is not going to implement these changes until only after the public release and initial public response to see HOW the present parameters play out.  IF things go south then WG will start to seriously take suggestions such as yours and many other players have suggested.  At this juncture...I think most are just going with the wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
511
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,780 posts
4,642 battles

I don't get point #2. 

From the game play videos that I've watched, the rework is a flat-out buff to everyone else's concealment game over what a CV is capable of right now.  Why are people are complaining that CV's will just hover their one available squadron over ships to keep them spotted when they have multiple squadrons they can do it with now?  As the game stands, a CV doesn't even have to sacrifice all of the damage they can do in a game while doing it. 

After the rework, that won't be possible to any appreciable extent.  In order to do damage, the CV has to cycle through their attacks.  Damage wins games and earns XP/credits.  I don't see what a CV player's motivation would be to give that up. 

Everyone that mentions this topic in their complaints or criticisms of the rework seems to imply that this will get worse somehow, and I just can't see any logic to the idea.

Am I missing something?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[KIWI]
Alpha Tester
190 posts
3,372 battles
21 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

I don't get point #2. 

From the game play videos that I've watched, the rework is a flat-out buff to everyone else's concealment game over what a CV is capable of right now.  Why are people are complaining that CV's will just hover their one available squadron over ships to keep them spotted when they have multiple squadrons they can do it with now?  As the game stands, a CV doesn't even have to sacrifice all of the damage they can do in a game while doing it. 

After the rework, that won't be possible to any appreciable extent.  In order to do damage, the CV has to cycle through their attacks.  Damage wins games and earns XP/credits.  I don't see what a CV player's motivation would be to give that up. 

Everyone that mentions this topic in their complaints or criticisms of the rework seems to imply that this will get worse somehow, and I just can't see any logic to the idea.

Am I missing something?

Spot on. It's going to be a large sacrifice if a CV wants to spot one ship. It can be done, but just like a DD doing the same thing, you can't do much else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[SBS]
Members
3,466 posts
2,408 battles
1 hour ago, Fishrokk said:

Am I missing something?

I think you are missing something.  Forget comparing the rework to the multiple squadrons of the old system.  There will be CVs in every match.  Probably one than one on each team.  The incidental spotting alone will mean there will be a radical increase in overall spotting in the game.  Have you played the rework?  I have played in all of the TST rounds and on the PTS.  There is a lot more spotting than you would think with only 1-3 CVs with one squadron each.  As I said the incidental spotting that happens in ever match is problematic for the ships that depend on concealment.  It was tolerable when a CV might be in 1 in 10 matches at high tiers.  It wasn't an often enough occurrence to be overly problematic.  Every match, its a problem.      

As for spotting and not doing anything else, you ever play DDs?  How valuable can their spotting be?  How important is spotting the enemy's DDs?  What are your chances of winning if your team is able to remove the enemy's DDs?  Besides, CVs can spot and attack ships at the same time.  In fact, they are always spotting, and there in lays the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
511
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,780 posts
4,642 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I think you are missing something.  Forget comparing the rework to the multiple squadrons of the old system.  There will be CVs in every match.  Probably one than one on each team.  The incidental spotting alone will mean there will be a radical increase in overall spotting in the game.  Have you played the rework?  I have played in all of the TST rounds and on the PTS.  There is a lot more spotting than you would think with only 1-3 CVs with one squadron each.  As I said the incidental spotting that happens in ever match is problematic for the ships that depend on concealment.  It was tolerable when a CV might be in 1 in 10 matches at high tiers.  It wasn't an often enough occurrence to be overly problematic.  Every match, its a problem.      

As for spotting and not doing anything else, you ever play DDs?  How valuable can their spotting be?  How important is spotting the enemy's DDs?  What are your chances of winning if your team is able to remove the enemy's DDs?  Besides, CVs can spot and attack ships at the same time.  In fact, they are always spotting, and there in lays the problem.

Okay, I can understand the frequency issue.  No, I have not played the rework - either in a CV or as a surface ship.

But a basic comparison between current game and rework, except at tier 4 and maybe 5, have players under the eyes of more squadrons of aircraft now than they will be under the rework.  One Hosho at tier 5 in the current game fields more squadrons than three rework carriers of any tier.  So, I hope you can understand where my skepticism comes from.

What do you mean by 'incidental spotting'? 

You still have the, "well, you won't understand 'til you experience it for yourself" argument.  And you could be right.  My experience with the game so far is that a logical analysis of announced changes beforehand has largely matched my experience of the change once it rolls out.

Spoiler
42 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

you ever play DDs?

Well, with the exception of Lightning, I have every tech tree tier 8 DD in port right now.  (I've been slacking - only up to T5 on the UK DD line.)

So... yeah, maybe a couple of times.

:Smile_veryhappy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,565 posts
7,884 battles
4 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

4) Bonus fix.  Remove the priority sector and replace it with player (manual) controlled AA. 

there are no words that would express how excited i would be for that, and they could use 4 for the hot key for AA gun control too, but some have said that would require more work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[SBS]
Members
3,466 posts
2,408 battles
1 hour ago, Fishrokk said:

But a basic comparison between current game and rework, except at tier 4 and maybe 5, have players under the eyes of more squadrons of aircraft now than they will be under the rework.  One Hosho at tier 5 in the current game fields more squadrons than three rework carriers of any tier.  So, I hope you can understand where my skepticism comes from.

I understand why you'd compare the current system to the rework.  The thing is the rework needs to be viewed as its own entity.  For example, the current AA is much stronger than what we have in the rework.  That means currently those Hosho squadrons need to avoid ships for stealth, and more importantly, to avoid the AA.  They aren't spotting as much as you'd think.  Also, most CV players group their squadrons into 3 groups (fighter in one group, TBs in another, and DBs in their own group) so they are easier to handle.  Even unicum CV players do that.  They never really spot 7-8 places on the map.  With the weaker AA in the rework CVs players don't mind flying near or even over ships since most ships don't have good AA.  They spot way more than you'd think.  For example, pretty much every ship is, or as been spotted less than a minute into the game.

2 hours ago, Fishrokk said:

What do you mean by 'incidental spotting'?

I mean what CV players spot without even purposefully trying to spot.  Just flying around looking for targets they are very good at spotting.  If they choose to spot they have up to 12 planes, with 3-4 attack runs to attack and spot.  DDs have very weak in in the first round of PTS.  There is not threat for the CV player to have his planes shot down by a DD.  There is a video where a CC in an AA spec'ed Gearing didn't shoot down a single plane the entire game, even with DFAA active. 

Since you play DDs you know how important spotting is.  I think the days of DDs doing the spotting may be numbered.  That role will go to CVs.  I think CV players will figure out DDs are easy XP since they have the lowest HP its easy to do a high percentage of damage to them with just a few attacks, and they have little to no AA to fight back.  DDs will be low risk/high reward.  The rest of the team will pile on the focus fire to try and get their share of that easy XP.  That's what has me concerned.  The good news is this is still a work in progress.  I wish I had more faith, but so far WG has been pretty firm on their vision of how the rework will be, and they have been unbending so far.  I think what we have now is more or less going to be what we end up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
570 posts
4,588 battles
7 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

For better or worse, the rework is coming.  I think there are going to be real balance issues with the game overall when CVs are in every match.  I have three ideas on how the biggest issues that I foresee might be fixed.  The core issues I see are, reduced concealment for surface ships across the board, CVs don't have to take the proper amount of risk to engage the enemy, and the lack of complexity/compelling game play with the reworked CVs.

Fix the CV rework in three easy steps:

1) This one is optional, limited hanger (plane limit).  Keep the current regeneration system but have a hard limit on planes.  I'm fine with reducing the regeneration/rearming time as a trade.  The limit doesn't need to be punitive, it should be balanced to be fair to all parties. 

2) Remove shared spotting for aircraft.  Have it so the ships aircraft spot only show up for the rest of the team on the mini map.  You could give planes a consumable that works sort of like radar.  This would allow the ships being spotted by the planes to be spotted by the rest of the team for a limited amount of time.  This would add some teamplay dynamic for CVs.

3) Player controlled fighters.  I know this one seems to be controversial, but it doesn't have to be balanced that way.  Its simple, balance fighters so that can't completely cancel out the opposing CV player's attacks.  You could have fighters only be able to shoot down half of a squadron, and/or make the rearming time for fighters longer than that of attack planes, that way it wouldn't be impossible to spam out fighters to cancel your opponent's attack.

4) Bonus fix.  Remove the priority sector and replace it with player (manual) controlled AA.      

 

#1 is already under consideration.  #2 isn't a battle worth fighting since the given rationale is that single CV games will "settle in over time" thus eliminating the "overspotting" 3 CV's would provide.  You cannot defeat a conception that is grounded in "giving it time to see if it is right" with anything but time.  In short, they are dug in on this one.  Also, I did not perceive spotting as the real problem with DD's.  It was the damage inflicted upon them with relative ease.  Regardless, I'll move on.   #4 is interesting because we do not know what the AA rework entails.  Will they greatly increase sector swapping time?  Will they nuke it altogether?  Who knows.  Gotta wait on that one.

All of the above steps are highly dependent on the current rework as is.  Will the rework balance things to make some of these points moot?  We don't know.  Hold these thoughts for after the rework because I suspect they will fall on deaf ears until then.

#3 is a conceptual dynamo.  As soon as I read it, I knew it made perfect, simple sense.  CV players need to be more engaged and this would do it.  On every test variant, the main gist of being a rework CV is farming damage over and over.  AA was weak and fighters were easily avoided.  You just picked a target and swarmed.  It was engaging, but not really strategically demanding.  Adding this would help virtually every problem you present in your steps...maybe making them unnecessary except for maybe a less clunky priority sector system.  And yes...it would demand even more time and balancing.  Still, this might present an option that is more palatable to those who hate the rework or the very concept of CV's.  Also, forget the manual strafe.  Forget auto attacks.  An AOE DOT would be simple, easy, and effective.  The main problem with this?  A smart CV would simply run fighters as much as possible while also using them to perma spot.  So...an obvious timer or limitation needs to be built in...maybe fuel?  Maybe a long rearm sequence?  I don't know yet...but the concept has serious potential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[SBS]
Members
3,466 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, Uber_Ghost said:

A smart CV would simply run fighters as much as possible while also using them to perma spot.  So...an obvious timer or limitation needs to be built in...maybe fuel?

I was thinking limited ammo.  We already have this in the current fighters so it would easily fit.  When out of ammo the planes fly back to the carrier just like the planes that have dropped their ordnance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
Members
1,140 posts
7 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

1) This one is optional, limited hanger (plane limit).  Keep the current regeneration system but have a hard limit on planes.  I'm fine with reducing the regeneration/rearming time as a trade.  The limit doesn't need to be punitive, it should be balanced to be fair to all parties. 

there is a maximum hard limit on aircraft, as a function of game time and the cool-down/(regeneration system) from losses, i.e. the maximum number possible aircraft is finite in a game, the better the opposition dose with respect to the task of maximising their mutual AA cover will push the aircraft regeneration cool-down time higher, thus reduce the frequency of aircraft attacks.

 

which is little different from the finite number of main gun shells that Missouri can fire in 20mins being 360 shells or less in 20mins as a function of there being 9 guns and a 30sec reload.

 

the fact that something like a shell or an aircraft doesn't have a predefined maximum per se but instead uses the simple function of time and reload cool-down doesn't make them "unlimited" or "infinite" per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,265 posts
4 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

I think you are missing something.  Forget comparing the rework to the multiple squadrons of the old system.  There will be CVs in every match.  Probably one than one on each team.  The incidental spotting alone will mean there will be a radical increase in overall spotting in the game.  Have you played the rework?  I have played in all of the TST rounds and on the PTS.  There is a lot more spotting than you would think with only 1-3 CVs with one squadron each.  As I said the incidental spotting that happens in ever match is problematic for the ships that depend on concealment.  It was tolerable when a CV might be in 1 in 10 matches at high tiers.  It wasn't an often enough occurrence to be overly problematic.  Every match, its a problem.      

As for spotting and not doing anything else, you ever play DDs?  How valuable can their spotting be?  How important is spotting the enemy's DDs?  What are your chances of winning if your team is able to remove the enemy's DDs?  Besides, CVs can spot and attack ships at the same time.  In fact, they are always spotting, and there in lays the problem.

Yeap.  Without even trying on PTS, it's possible to rack up spotting damage and spotting ribbons, and keep multiple enemy ships spotted just via the ongoing effort to send aircraft out and attack. Plus, there are the fighter "drops", which also spot an area around them.  And that's just with one carrier.  With multiple carriers, there will be at least as much spotting as there was under the old system.

And I say that as someone who WANTS more spotting in general, because I hate the hide-and-seak vision-gaming meta that dominates Randoms.

...

As for the silly debate over the infinite aircraft in the rework, it's simple. 

In the old system, the carrier could run out of aircraft if it was careless or AA did a great job.   Finite.

In the new system, no amount of aircraft shot down will ever keep a carrier from regenerating and sending out more aircraft.   Infinite. 

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
Members
1,140 posts
11 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

In the new system, no amount of aircraft shot down will ever keep a carrier from regenerating and sending out more aircraft.   Infinite. 

but as we can predict the maximum theoretical number as a function of time it is by definition finite and NOT Infinite or unlimited, because the limits comes from game time and cool-down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
570 posts
4,588 battles
34 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I was thinking limited ammo.  We already have this in the current fighters so it would easily fit.  When out of ammo the planes fly back to the carrier just like the planes that have dropped their ordnance.

I was thinking a limitation on the availability of fighters rather than the limitation of ammo which can be saved at will.  It was more of a conceptual question to limit one from spamming fighters the whole match and permaspotting...if you're following my somewhat vague explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,265 posts
2 minutes ago, b101uk said:

but as we can predict the maximum theoretical number as a function of time it is by definition finite and NOT Infinite or unlimited, because the limits comes from game time and cool-down.

 

I can't shoot enough of them down to make them stop coming.  No matter how many I shoot down, there will be more.   In the last minute of a battle, there will be just as many enemy aircraft coming as there were at battle start. 

 

(And AA took a nerf-bat to the face in the rework, and the buff to the HP of AA mounts doesn't appear to have made any difference, it's still gets blown off just as easily.)

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
660
[WOLFB]
Members
2,223 posts
9,745 battles

Or you can just remove them and refund player who invested in those ship.

 

The more I watch CC vids regarding CV rework the more I'm thinking WG has no clue on how to balace them. And I would be in the same situation as WG if I were to balance CV. If I were to take an RPG as Fire Emblem, CV are like wizzard in a fight between Mercenaries - Fighters - Cavalier. Mercenaries uses swords, Fighters uses Axes and Cavalier uses spear. The balance is the following :

Axes>Spear>Sword>Axes... 

 

If you decide to add a wizard with his magic and spells, how are you supposed to balance it around the other 3 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
Members
1,140 posts
Just now, KilljoyCutter said:

 

I can't shoot enough of them down to make them stop coming.  No matter how many I shoot down, there will be more

 

(And AA took a nerf-bat to the face in the rework, and the buff to the HP of AA mounts doesn't appear to have made any difference, it's still gets blown off just as easily.) 

 

 

but NONE of them points makes aircraft "Infinite or unlimited", because in both case you can place a maximum number on them as a function of time and cool down.

 

the fact that "AA took a nerf-bat to the face" is neither here nor there, but its better to start AA off at a low value and massage it up over time, than to start it of as drastically OP, given if CV's are to be death by a thousand cuts then cuts MUST get through at a reasonable rate and NO lone ship should have virtual immunity due to OP AA.

 

want to shoot down aircraft better, adapt and informally group up, don't want to adapt, then be a target.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[SBS]
Members
3,466 posts
2,408 battles

ordnance

9 hours ago, b101uk said:

there is a maximum hard limit on aircraft, as a function of game time and the cool-down/(regeneration system) from losses, i.e. the maximum number possible aircraft is finite in a game, the better the opposition dose with respect to the task of maximising their mutual AA cover will push the aircraft regeneration cool-down time higher, thus reduce the frequency of aircraft attacks.

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree about it being what we should have.  When you have a finite number it is more unforgiving, and that is the entire point.  We can balance the number of planes so its not punitive.  The most practical part of a limit would be you'd run out of a certain type of aircraft if you didn't manage them properly.  If you spam out TBs you could run out and not have them when you need them.  Surface ships face unforgiving decisions all the time and the reworked CVs don't.  A plane limit would help level the playing field.

I don't want to have a debate on whether AA is OP or if infinite is the same finite planes.  I want to look at ways we can improve the rework, not rehash the same old stuff.   

9 hours ago, Uber_Ghost said:

I was thinking a limitation on the availability of fighters rather than the limitation of ammo which can be saved at will.  It was more of a conceptual question to limit one from spamming fighters the whole match and permaspotting...if you're following my somewhat vague explanations.

You could prevent spamming of fighters by having a longish rearm/regeneration time.  If the player never uses up all of his ammo so he can stay out and spot, well, that's fine.  You can do the same thing now if you never drop all of your ordnance, you can fly around as long as your planes survive.  You'd give up doing damage to spot.  That's not an unreasonable trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,562 posts
47 battles
10 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

In the new system, no amount of aircraft shot down will ever keep a carrier from regenerating and sending out more aircraft.   Infinite. 

Infinite yes, but you cannot just suicide-rush all your squadrons to a target and have the same amount of planes ready for takeoff.

Suicide-rushing planes will result in a time penalty where you cannot launch that particular squadron for a time, and even after it you only launch half the number of planes in a squad.

And your "AA is worthless against infinite planes!" rant is laughable, as the devs already know that AA in PTS is underpowered, and is already working on buffing it.

Edited by RyuuohD_NA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,265 posts
2 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Infinite yes, but you cannot just suicide-rush all your squadrons to a target and have the same amount of planes ready for takeoff.

Suicide-rushing planes will result in a time penalty where you cannot launch that particular squadron for a time, and even after it you only launch half the number of planes in a squad.

And your "AA is worthless against infinite planes!" rant is laughable, as the devs already know that AA in PTS is underpowered, and is already working on buffing it.

First, are they going to "buff" it with some meaningless numerical tweaks, or meaningfully address the core issues (lack of range boost, lack of overlap, etc)?

Second, where did I say "AA is worthless against infinite planes!"   You're either misreading that, or again doing that thing where you argue with something you'd like to laugh at, rather than what the person actually posted.  

IF AA is strong enough to blunt the first drop from a squadron, then it's not worthless -- however what we're seeing in PTS and video reviews is that AA is rarely doing anything to keep at least the first drop from a squadron from being full power.

The point remains -- in the rework, no matter how many planes I shoot down, no matter how long the battle goes on, the enemy CV can keep sending planes against my ship.   Meanwhile, as noted, my AA continues to get weaker because AA mounts are fragile as hell and never repair. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,562 posts
47 battles
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

IF AA is strong enough to blunt the first drop from a squadron, then it's not worthless -- however what we're seeing in PTS and video reviews is that AA is rarely doing anything to keep at least the first drop from a squadron from being full power.

The point remains -- in the rework, no matter how many planes I shoot down, no matter how long the battle goes on, the enemy CV can keep sending planes against my ship.   Meanwhile, as noted, my AA continues to get weaker because AA mounts are fragile as hell and never repair. 

Have you even stopped and considered a "wait and see" approach instead of throwing a hissy fit every single CV thread? 

You keep on treating that whatever is shown about CVs or AA in PTS videos is the final product that cannot be changed.

How many instances had it been in the past where CCs put out videos showing game mechanic changes or ship lines that people whined and griped about, only for it to be changed later on, and rendering whatever videos made before those are implemented completely obsolete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,231
[5BS]
Members
5,930 posts
19 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

1) This one is optional, limited hanger (plane limit).  Keep the current regeneration system but have a hard limit on planes.  I'm fine with reducing the regeneration/rearming time as a trade.  The limit doesn't need to be punitive, it should be balanced to be fair to all parties. 

If you do the math, they already cannot possibly deplane in the time alloted for a match. Since you can only have 1 squad of strike aircraft up at a time, in order to deplane 30-40 to 116 planes on the Midway, takes longer than the 20 minutes of a match.

Assuming it takes ~30 seconds to get the first Squad airborne, and let's pretend it's a constant trip (1 way, since we're talking about limitations to hanger size thus EVERY plane must be killed so the trip is 1 way) of 30 km. Right now in game it takes a TB Squad ~70 seconds to travel that distance (+- a few seconds depending on any alterations in course to avoid AA blankets). Assuming it takes ~25-45 seconds for ALL the planes in the squad to be shot down, the new reload for a full squad takes what? 1:20? That means the first cycle takes ~3.783 minutes, let's call it at 4 for craphappens. Every subsequent cycle takes 4.61 minutes, call it at 5. That means, in total, you only get to LOSE an entire squad 4 times in the whole match. It is impossible to deplane any of the T10's under that constraint. And likewise most of the T7's and up are also impossible to deplane. So in effect, putting a hanger limit that is in any way realistic to the actual hangers present, results in them having 'unlimited' planes already. The same way that most CA's, BB's, and some CL's all carried more ammo per gun in real life than it would take to fire constantly for 20 minutes, thus in effect having 'unlimited' ammo for all practical purposes.

19 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

2) Remove shared spotting for aircraft.  Have it so the ships aircraft spot only show up for the rest of the team on the mini map.  You could give planes a consumable that works sort of like radar.  This would allow the ships being spotted by the planes to be spotted by the rest of the team for a limited amount of time.  This would add some teamplay dynamic for CVs.

This only makes sense to try to protect DD's from being spotted and at some point DD's are going to have to acknowledge that they are a TARGET, not a super sekrit ninja. Also, you seem to be operating under the idea that a CV will regularly choose to do VERY little damage by constantly keeping planes over a DD instead of focusing on the STATIONARY BB's sniping at 23 km that they can harass and harang with DOTs the whole match.

19 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

3) Player controlled fighters.  I know this one seems to be controversial, but it doesn't have to be balanced that way.  Its simple, balance fighters so that can't completely cancel out the opposing CV player's attacks.  You could have fighters only be able to shoot down half of a squadron, and/or make the rearming time for fighters longer than that of attack planes, that way it wouldn't be impossible to spam out fighters to cancel your opponent's attack.

Not realistic. The only reason player controlled strike aircraft works, is that air controls become very simple as it's mostly about flying around and setting up runs. Air combat involves concerns about airspeed, altitude, and a mess of other factors that would essentially mean transposing the entire World of Warplanes mechanics into this game, which is just not practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,895 posts
10,762 battles

My proposal involves only one easy step:

> cd sources

> rm -rf models/CV/*

Wait. That's Linux. Windows:

> cd sources

> rd models\CV\*.* /s /q

Edited by chewonit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,231
[5BS]
Members
5,930 posts
10 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Axes>Spear>Sword>Axes... 

 

If you decide to add a wizard with his magic and spells, how are you supposed to balance it around the other 3 ? 

Remove 1: DD's. They are the odd-man-out right now. CL/CA's counter CV's, CV's counter BB's, BB's counter CA/CL's. That dynamic works great with few complaints. DD's are the one's spoiling the bunch. CV's countering BB's both makes sense logically, intuitively, and practically (negate's armor and range). DD's screw it all up given the volume of [edited] attached to them. Plus their players are ANNOYING as [edited]. CV's are fine and without DD's the whole 'spotting' thing becomes a non-starter.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,265 posts
10 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

The more I watch CC vids regarding CV rework the more I'm thinking WG has no clue on how to balace them. And I would be in the same situation as WG if I were to balance CV. If I were to take an RPG as Fire Emblem, CV are like wizzard in a fight between Mercenaries - Fighters - Cavalier. Mercenaries uses swords, Fighters uses Axes and Cavalier uses spear. The balance is the following :

Axes>Spear>Sword>Axes... 

 

If you decide to add a wizard with his magic and spells, how are you supposed to balance it around the other 3 ?

You balance it by ditching the idea of circular or rock-paper-scissors "balance" entirely, and avoiding any situation where a player is effectively helpless based simply on what type of ship they're in versus the ship they're fighting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×