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

Ideas and Improvements to consider for CVs and PTS.

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
5,159 posts
9,646 battles

Last night, my friends and I ended up tossing ideas around that we thought could work well not only for things upon us like CV rework, but PTS and how players access it.

Lets start with the hot topic of the month, CV rework.

On flak, if you were to have played PTS last weekend you would have been encounter by very strange looking walls of black cloud. They appear as if shot all at the same time, exactly level with you in the air, at a certain distance from you based on your speed. It looks intimidating at first, but actually easily avoided once you learn to abuse the mechanic after a couple games of experience. Most likely WG will make it more realistic as they develop it, but I also know the idea wont be expanded upon much. Something I would rather see as both someone in the planes and a ship 'fighting' back, would be to spawn these clouds in a 180 degree half circle in front of those planes, forcing planes to go left and right to avoid them. What about up and down as well? Lets use the Q and E keys to adjust plane altitude and dodge this flak, even if it's only on pre-determined levels. Something like 2 or even 3 of this different heights wouldn't be overly complex for a player, and fits in keeping with the action. And now you can have the flak spawn in these 2 or 3 different levels which will look much more natural, and you can even add cosmetic ones that go further above and below as a finishing touch. Pre-determined flight levels are already doable since we see things like certain heights for attack runs after all. A denser flak build on your ship can make this avoidance more complicated, and you will be able to notice some fight back.

On the subject of a ship fighting back against planes, right now it feels very non-existent unless you wipe a full squad by way of black wall of flak. In fact as a ship you can't even see the planes HP bars in their damaged states (yellow and red). It should be very simple to make it so I can see this damage occuring other than some planes having smoking wings etc. What if on top of that, plane damage wasn't healed automatically upon landing? Wouldn't it be nice, as a ship, to see an enemy squad coming in that still has damage done to it from earlier, some yellow and maybe even red planes, as though it's a DD or any other ship that you had hurt earlier in the game? Something like that would make carriers fit in more with how the other classes play, wherein the damage you take is more or less lasting throughout the battle and has an effect on the choices you make, and some ships can heal that damage back marginally. Leave the plane resupply mechanic in, so you can never truly be deplaned. Allow the game to launch as many full health planes as possible, and then planes on yellow status, then red etc. Add on beside the plane resupply, a plane repair meter. Something like that would take some work admittedly, but I think it could be worth it both as something for a CV player to think about during his battle but as some feedback of success for ships with their AA.

Furthermore, why not allow a CV player to launch a smaller version of a full squad? Currently you have to double press a number to launch a plane, which leaves room for this to work. Move plane launch selection down to the consumable hotkeys (R,T,Y), select the squad type you want to launch by pressing once, then use 1-4 numbers to decide how many strikes of planes you want in that squad up to it's maximum. ex:

  • Attack planes full loadout is 10 planes, allowing for 5 seperate attacks of 2 each. Press R to select attack planes, press 3 to select number of strikes, press R to launch attack planes. Now you have sent out a reduced loadout of 6 planes, allowing for 3 strikes of 2 each.

This can reduce the amount of planes that can be lost in total, but also reduced the buffer your squad has, since strikes 4 and 3 are what take damage while you are striking with 1 and 2. You will also have to make that trip back from your carrier to the front of the battle more often, but you can send 2 smaller compliments of torp planes twice in quick succession. You would also have to add a delay in which the same squad can be launched so you can't straight line 1 strike to a ship 7km away from you over and over.

 

I'm sure other people have had similar ideas, but I just really don't want WG to step away from implementing new things to the existing rework and just rely on balancing what's already there. Lets step away from the rework though, and talk about PTS and live balancing.

PTS is not very accessible. A whole seperate client download just to play a few days of something, why is that even necessary? There is already things in the main client that you can use to gate this testing content. Ships that only work for certain gamemodes, some gamemode have time based access like clan battles, ranked or even operations. I would rather testing content be accessed this way through the main client, because not only would I or anyone else not have to download a seperate client, you would have more people there to test this content more thoroughly and avoid even more live balancing. Allow a setting to be trigger to be able to see the testing content, or have a player access a PTS port or something.

What about incentives? With PTS being in the same client like that accessed by the same account, you can immediately give any account rewards. You could even add better ones, like instead of having a period of time where players get essentially free respec for when it goes live, give every ship 1 respec and allow the player to play PTS and earn respec tokens or something like that. You already have special resources like the cossack badges or molybdenum etc, make one a skill reset medal. Now you can spend doubloons, elite cpt xp or a skill reset medal to reskill a captain. What about experience earned on ships in the PTS, lets say on your live game account you don't own Cleveland, but on the PTS you played cleveland. Lets make half the XP earned on PTS cleveland apply to live cleveland, so when you finally unlock cleveland naturally on live, that ship will now have some progress already done from PTS. Now people are being appropriately rewarded for their time invested on testing, rather than some handful of flags that only requires a few battles do it. Testing can be more rewarding both for the player and WG.

 

We had more wild ideas, but I think adding them would dilute whats already here. Tell me what you think, or what are your ideas? 

Edited by Pulicat
reduced complex description of para3
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,116
[YORHA]
Members
3,807 posts
6,614 battles

I see nothing here to disagree with.

Also, as I stated in another thread, you could implement limited (but generous) Torp and Bombers, but unlimited Attack planes.  That way the CV would have to be aware of his big hitter resources, but would still have some measure of self defense capability against the inevitable sniping DDs as well as a small late game offensive capability.  Also I don't see any reason you can't have player controlled fighters.  Or give the Attack squads the ability to shoot down planes.

I have faith that what we see here is the base for future evolution of CV game play.  Look back at early WoWs videos and see how far the game has come. People act like the CV rework, once launched, will never progress beyond a few minor tweaks.  I see another path.

Edited by JCC45
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,159 posts
9,646 battles
8 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

 

Also, as I stated in another thread, you could implement limited (but generous) Torp and Bombers, but unlimited Attack planes.  That way the CV would have to be aware of his big hitter resources, but would still have some measure of self defense capability against the inevitable sniping DDs as well as a small late game offensive capability.  Also I don't see any reason you can't have player controlled fighters.  Or give the Attack squads the ability to shoot down planes.

This is really good. Although currently I've seen an attack plane strike do 13k in one flyby, which even if it was lucky RNG is still damage on par with those 'big hitters' so that would have to be reduced for this trade off to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,131
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,023 posts
7,968 battles

Constructive ideas. Even if I find paragraph 3, over complicated - but then I am a simple soul. Also, while I understand and sympathize with the reasoning, it would be contrary to the philosophy of the CV rework, which is to reduce player workload, 

Yes to more sophisticated flak effects rather than the atrocious XXXXXX wall of black puffs of doom, improved feedback display on AA dmg to planes for targets of air attacks. While predicative AA is a good idea, in practice it is also, predictable AA (all I need do in dive bombers is keep my squadrons turning in lazy left/right arcs through the long range AA, then take some on the chin until attack run is lined up). But, if AA is to send up variable altitude flak, allow squadrons to change altitude too, without committing to an attack run.

Surely CV players are clever enough to get the ide that planes fly up and down?

As for PTS vs Live, many things can be tested on a separate shard of Live, in a special game setting, as occurred for submarines. But all? idea is spot on, but in practice would it be so easy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,131
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,023 posts
7,968 battles
2 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

This is really good. Although currently I've seen an attack plane strike do 13k in one flyby, which even if it was lucky RNG is still damage on par with those 'big hitters' so that would have to be reduced for this trade off to work.

At times it felt as thought attack planes in PTS render other options obselete given the ease and flexibility of dealing dmg with them, while with a little practice, I had no trouble holding onto full squadrons at the end of battle, and dealing 200k + dmg at t10. Finite reserves really do need to come back, balancing rechargeable reserves will never succeed as on PTS right now, properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,116
[YORHA]
Members
3,807 posts
6,614 battles
1 minute ago, LoveBote said:

At times it felt as thought attack planes in PTS render other options obselete given the ease and flexibility of dealing dmg with them, while with a little practice, I had no trouble holding onto full squadrons at the end of battle, and dealing 200k + dmg at t10. Finite reserves really do need to come back, balancing rechargeable reserves will never succeed as on PTS right now, properly.

I think it's a little early to make that assumption.  On the PTS you were playing against bots or (for the most part) reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy bad players who were probably taking a shiny new bote out for the first time.

A month or so on the live server will tell the tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,131
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,023 posts
7,968 battles
Just now, JCC45 said:

On the PTS you were playing against bots or (for the most part) reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy bad players who were probably taking a shiny new bote out for the first time.

as far as the rework goes, everybody is a noob, even CV mains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,357 posts
7,662 battles
30 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

Last night, me and a few friends.. 

 

 

My friends and I*

 

Sry...

 

 

Imma horrible person...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,116
[YORHA]
Members
3,807 posts
6,614 battles
4 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

as far as the rework goes, everybody is a noob, even CV mains.

I was talking about the target ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,159 posts
9,646 battles
9 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Constructive ideas. Even if I find paragraph 3, over complicated - but then I am a simple soul. Also, while I understand and sympathize with the reasoning, it would be contrary to the philosophy of the CV rework, which is to reduce player workload, 

More sophisticated flak effects rather than the atrocious XXXXXX wall of black puffs of doom, improved feedback display on AA dmg to planes for targets of air attacks. While predicative AA is a good idea, in practice it is also, predictable AA (all I need do in dive bombers is keep my squadrons turning in lazy left/right arcs through the long range AA, then take some on the chin until attack run is lined up). But, if AA is to send up variable altitude flak, allow squadrons to change altitude too, without committing to an attack run.

Surely CV players are clever enough to get the ide that planes fly up and down?

As for PTS vs Live, many things can be tested on a separate shard of Live, in a special game setting, as occurred for submarines. But all? idea is spot on, but in practice would it be so easy?

I tidied para3 up a bit. I kinda just wrote it all and didn't bother proofreading. 

I do not think this increasing complexity goes against the rework at all. Right now on the PTS tech tree you have far left BBs, least complex, then CA, CL, DD and then CVs branching off DD. I think since CVs act like faster DDs, adding a more reactive approach to gameplay is fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,159 posts
9,646 battles
10 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

I think it's a little early to make that assumption.  On the PTS you were playing against bots or (for the most part) reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy bad players who were probably taking a shiny new bote out for the first time.

A month or so on the live server will tell the tale.

Sure, it could be said that players in ships will improve their reaction to cv attacks over time, but you will also see cv players doing the same. The surface on what COULD be done is barely scratched. What mostly is being done is basic stuff, and then over time people will get better and start doing more complex things or play predictions etc.

I mean it took a long time for people to start aiming at Khab properly as a whole, or even a simple concept as torping smokes. Nobody really did that at the start. Some of my opponent CVs in PTS constantly tried to overpower their way through flak walls and lost everything in the same battle, for me it took once to learn that hurts way too much to try going through, and a couple more times before I understood how to manipulate the spawning of those flak walls like lovebote described. Eventually i'll start planning even better and set myself up for ideal attack runs while manipulating this flak etc. Some players learning curve is much longer, or even barely noticable in some cases.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
113 posts
4,428 battles

I don't care for the altitude ajustment bit, other than that they seem like good ideas.

I did see another player mention giving steel or coal out as a reward. I think that would definitely help the test server population. It was very fustrating to see only 500 or so players on sunday night while 17k were on the live server.

I really didn't get to play with the AA ships much in random battles becuase getting a match with a CV felt like winning the lottery. Isn't there a way you could make sure players were actually paired up with CVs? I rather face a team with an unbalanced amount of human players than face a bot team with balanced human players and no CV. It shouldn't be about winning, we're just testing the AA and CVs right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[CRMSN]
Members
477 posts
3,166 battles

Im going to be honest. 

I fear the new CV remake more than the RTS one.

Making Flak a Skill based thing is good. 

But, remember, WG made this update for the console crowd. So, what your suggesting is probably too complex to do on a controller quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,159 posts
9,646 battles
1 minute ago, Anime_Is_Degeneracy said:

Im going to be honest. 

I fear the new CV remake more than the RTS one.

Making Flak a Skill based thing is good. 

But, remember, WG made this update for the console crowd. So, what your suggesting is probably too complex to do on a controller quickly. 

I don't believe the made for console argument. But even if that is the case, Analogs for movement/camera. triggers for speed up/down. D-pad consumables. and letter key for attack run etc. this would leave shoulder buttons for raise/lower altitude. How this would be too complex to do quickly is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[CRMSN]
Members
477 posts
3,166 battles
Just now, Pulicat said:

I don't believe the made for console argument. But even if that is the case, Analogs for movement/camera. triggers for speed up/down. D-pad consumables. and letter key for attack run etc. this would leave shoulder buttons for raise/lower altitude. How this would be too complex to do quickly is beyond me.

You got me there, I only play on PC since 1997. Anytime i try to use a controller im overwhelmed. 

Plus i believe the average damage and winrates would be lower on a console due to lack of a keyboard and mouse. Its just not as intuitive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,159 posts
9,646 battles
1 minute ago, Anime_Is_Degeneracy said:

You got me there, I only play on PC since 1997. Anytime i try to use a controller im overwhelmed. 

Plus i believe the average damage and winrates would be lower on a console due to lack of a keyboard and mouse. Its just not as intuitive. 

I guess that's fair. I struggled adjusting to keyboard controls for a long time when I came from consoles as a kid.

What will be interesting to see is, if they just apply wasd directly to left analog, how will they apply the minor adjustments you can make with your mouse. It could very well be you must 'wasd' on your analog to make even tiny corrections, and our wasd does not do that very well in the rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[CRMSN]
Members
477 posts
3,166 battles

That could be Good, mostly because you can get finer movements with a analog stick. Especially if it has the same two settings we have for movement now (sticky turn, and auto center) 

I do not use auto center. 

Edited by Anime_Is_Degeneracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
197
[-GDP-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,593 posts
1,105 battles

Those flak clouds are pretty easy to avoid most of the time once you get the hang of it. Also CV captains are bound to have skills to counter act AA skills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
[RUST]
Beta Testers
991 posts
11,049 battles
2 hours ago, Pulicat said:

PTS is not very accessible. A whole seperate client download just to play a few days of something, why is that even necessary? There is already things in the main client that you can use to gate this testing content. Ships that only work for certain gamemodes, some gamemode have time based access like clan battles, ranked or even operations. I would rather testing content be accessed this way through the main client, because not only would I or anyone else not have to download a seperate client, you would have more people there to test this content more thoroughly and avoid even more live balancing. Allow a setting to be trigger to be able to see the testing content, or have a player access a PTS port or something.

 

While this would be nice, I don't think it is technically feasible since the PTS needs to be able to test changes within port and port UI as well which are elements that are not subject to changes based on game modes. In addition patches might require accessing resources that are changing but have the same file or variable names in which case having a piece of that on the live client may cause bugs and issue in of itself even if it's stored under a separate directory. If a bug or issue is discovered with the test element, it becomes more difficult to isolate late the cause since you have test elements mixed in with non-test elements maybe, all in all it's best from a software development perspective to not mix test and live builds. 

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.

×