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

Wait, is that another CV fix suggestion?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
667 posts
2,455 battles

So, it's me again, some calling out for me as "The Pro-CV agenda", feel free to find my other topics and think for yourself.

 

Anyway, another day, another idea, let's list some of the complaints from both CV and the "surfacers" to be concerned with this post:

I in no way want to "bully" the other ship classes by calling them surfacers, this is just a joke to enter in the mood of "surface ship game".

 

CVs:

  • We don't have the damage we had before rework
  • Sometimes flak is undodgeable, specially when coming from behind
  • Flak is passing through mountains (we'll adress only when going out)
  • There are ships that I can only do 1 meek strike even with 12 planes because his AA is too OP

"Surfacers": 

  • I get ***ed by sailing alone
  • CVs perma spot me
  • I have to play "xx" because of CVs repeated strikes
  • I get constantly hit by the same planes all the time
  • AP DB so OP
  • Catapulting is OP
  • DDs are useless with CVs in the match

 

Some problems that won't be adressed in full:

  • Unlimited planes (approached differently)
  • Spotting distance
  • Undodgeable flak walls (when attacking)

 

Now, a medal for you if you read until here without downvoting, let's go for the suggestion:

-----------------------

The attacking size of a squad would be now 1/2 rounded down of the full squad and 2/3 rounded down for specialty from the nation with a minimum of 2, specialty planes are pretty obvious with USN being Rockets (tiny tims), IJN being Torps and RN being bombers, yes they all also have special features on the other planes but those are the quite noticeable things that even premium ships of other nations doesn't have, this is why IJN AP and USN HE isn't considered the specialty when you can see Kaga's HE and Enterprise's AP and the possibility that the second CV line is like the opposite of the main line, meaning that we might get Hiryu with HE bombers and Bogue with AP bombs.

BUT HEY, THAT'S NOT HELPING US SURFACERS, YOU'RE JUST INCREASING THE ATTACK SIZE, YOU LIAR! GIVE MY TIME BACK.

Calm down mate, now here comes the best part:

CV players will only be able to make one attack only, and the maximum amount of planes in the squad determines the attack size, so for example, if player A sent 12 USN Dive Bombers, he'll attack with 6 planes and that's it, no more "endless wave of planes" on an isolated target, the maximum amount of planes you'll get hit by is 6, no matter how "[edited]" your AA might be, that is pretty much reducing CV's strike power by 33% since in most cases we'd be able to do 3 attack runs with T10 CVs on a T8 ship with weak AA (maybe all 4 attacks).

Well...ok, you reduced the total amount of attack runs done but doesn't this mean that if I don't kill 6 planes (in this example) I'll get hit by full force? It's certainly a nerf for grouping up effectiveness.

Well, if the first part is a "buff" towards CV alpha damage per strike and isolated targets survivability, the second part is a buff for AA support.

You see, in the example before the player would be able to have 6 planes attacking with his 12 planes per squadron...but if you manage to kill 1 plane, it goes down to 5 attacking planes (11/2 = 5.5)...if you manage to kill 3 planes, It'll go down to 4 planes only (9/2 = 4.5), meaning that if the AA is effective, it'll damage planes AND the attack run meaning that AA is increasing survivability again. Another thing to take notice is that by limiting to 1 attack only, catapulting becomes useless and those DBs WILL HAVE TO FLY THROUGH FLAK/AA in order to damage you, and we all know that catapulting was a way to avoid flak and AA of targets with high AA power, thus with this rework the probability of having a full attack on an AA vessel will be almost non-existant.

And what about that lonely GK at the edge of the map? Wouldn't it mean that it's possible to drop 6 IJN AP bombs on him? Wouldn't it be possible to citadel him 6 times, destroying 33% or more of his life in one go?

Now now, calm down, AP DBs are powerful because they're damage that can't be healed as much as others, but at the same time, they're too RNG dependant, it's not always that you'll get a citadel hit, specially in some ships (French and USN BBs), but I understand that getting citadeled by a player screens away is painful...and this is why a "new ribbon" will be created, together with a new damage system...it's the "Citadel Bomb" ribbon that is awarded after dealing "Citadel Bombing damage", this type of damage can be healed by the actual exceptions on citadel damage on the repair party (excluding the RN exception, check spoiler bellow for the image and link), meaning that every ship will be able to heal at least 33% of citadel damage done by AP bombs, this would mean that if you take 27k damage from citadels from AP bomb, you'll be able to heal 33% of it, which is 9k. But that's not only it.

Citadel bombing does 25% less damage to cruisers, this is needed because IJN AP DBs are already very precise and often scoring at least 1 citadel hit, so in the rare case of you getting hit by a full squad of high precision AP DB, you won't have to deal with possible 54k citadel damage, but 40,5k damage....again, that is if you're hit with a full squad and said squad manages to hit ALL the bombs into your citadel, quite rare and usually happens when you're alone and standing still (I for example did 7 drops on a cleveland for 34k damage with citadels and penetrations/overpen but used all 12 DBs, video in the spoiler).

Remember though that before this suggestion, you could make 3 attack runs on, for example, a bismarck (in the video you can see that I did 3 attack runs on a pristine cleveland...imagine that on a weak/damaged ship, that would be at least 9 bombs).

Spoiler

 

Well...ok, it looks like I'll receive less damage with AA ships...but what about DDs? They have weak AA and are alone most of the time, what about them?

DDs without DP guns will now have a buff towards their AA capabilities, right now it's hard to balance the DD to the CV gameplay because the AA on some nations is miserable while in others it's almost like a cruiser, the last one being so due to DP guns and high amount of AA mounts, so in order to not let DDs with weak AA to be fodder for the enemy team, this buff would be applied:

  • Whenever a plane is hit by constant AA from a DD without DP guns and outside smoke, this plane will take 20% increased damage of said AA. DDs with DP guns only receive a 7.5% increase.
  • This applies until the squad is called off or if the DD gets inside a smokescreen, even if the squad leaves the AA zone of the DD, it'll still have the "debuff" applied as long as the DD didn't enter a smokescreen.
  • DDs AA are now cumulative when grouped up, this doesn't apply when there are 3 allied ships inside the AA distance. This will give another role for DP DDs, that is being escorts for larger ships because the AA damage from the DD will not be reduced by cumulative AA from others.

This modification seems little at first, but remember, most DDs weren't meant to be as strong as cruisers fitted exclusively for the anti-air purposes when alone, and thus, it's somehow balanced, if we take into account that the plane will need to spot the DD first, then the DD will turn on the AA and if said plane wants to attack the DD, it'll have to make a turn and enter the AA again, if we take into consideration that it would take around 5~6 seconds to do this, it would mean an increase in 100%~120% of constant AA damage, that would probably let said DD without DP guns to have enough damage to at least kill a plane during or after the attack run, instead of being unable to defend itself when sailing alone without smoke (yes, they should be punished by a CV for doing so, but at the same time, they shouldn't be deleted with 4 attack runs because of that).

 

But it's still possible to make a 6 plane attack in a DD that has been spotted by someone else, how can the DD deal with it, if there are times where a DD takes 14k or more damage from only 3 bombers?

Young cricket, I agree with you, if the same example happened with a DD, it would mean 12 USN HE bombs ready to sink him, so a feature known to most will be now applied easier for DDs, "SATURATION", HE hits from rockets and bombs will deal less damage due to an increase in "saturation effectiveness" against air attacks (not shells, only planes), we could put in a way so the max damage can never exceed 40% of a DDs HP unless it's a detonation, this would also mean that increasing your DDs HP via commander's skill will also increase the max saturation damage, this alone would make it so DDs are able to survive up to 2 full hits attacks...but not the modules.

Also, the modification for main armaments should be modified so that it increases survivability of the armaments of a certain ship class, thus reducing the possibility of getting main weapons destroyed according to the class (This makes a lot more sense when you see that this mod protects BBs main armaments in the same way it protects DDs armaments while both of them have different armor and some can only be damaged by sheer luck). Notice that since it'll be only 1 attack run before the automated pull out, meaning that for the CV to keep a DD spotted, it'll need to remain on the AA zone for longer, which would hurt the CV DPS and planes in order to have teammates firing at the DD.

 

Allright them, but what about the planes that fly away? They often return without being damaged enough when attacking a single target.

Well...they are pretty vulnerable already but I understand that the AA works in a "bidimensional" way, which means that if the plane is 10km high but at 1km away from you, it'll be hit by short range AA, that is usually the weakest in AA ships, so, in order to counter this, planes that begin their ascending will take short range AA for the first seconds then 2 second of medium range and 1 second of long range, if I'm not wrong planes take 4 seconds to fully ascend, doing this way it'll give that last extra "burst" needed to destroy a plane or two but at the same time not punishing the CV with the automatic return when for example inside the medium range of 2 ships. Of course, this might need a better tweaking in the case of ships with lower/longer AA range or the lack of it. The changes for the AA damage to the returning planes, however, will only apply for the "reserve" squad and at halved the duration for the "attacking squad" because the attacking squad will have dropped their payload, thus increasing their climb speed, meaning that if a player manages to attack without losing a plane in a 12 planes squad, the 6 attacking planes will take 2 seconds to climb while the other 6 will take 4 seconds, those numbers will change if there are planes taken down during the attack run, for example it would change to 5 attackers and 6 reserves if 1 plane is shot down and to 4 attackers and 5 reserves if 3 are shot down, meaning that the reserve planes will always have even or bigger numbers, meaning that AA will always manage to punish a bigger amount of planes.

 

Just out of curiosity, what would be a sample size for T10 CVs squads?

USN:

12 Attackers - 10 TBs - 12 DBs

IJN:

10 Attackers - 10 short range or 12 long range TBs - 12 DBs

RN:

10 Attackers - 10 TBs - 10 Bombers

 

Because of the large attack squads, some stats for rockets would be changed in order to decrease the number of rockets (reduce visual clutter) but increase the damage and fire chance, no one would like to receive 70+ HVARS to the face...

 

Wait, wth? You want to tell me that there could be 8 IJN torpedoes in the water...or 8 USN attackers flying straight at me just because it's their specialty and it's in the 2/3 rule instead of the 1/2...this will definetely hurt a lot and I can't agree with this.

Well, first of all, the amount of planes would also be reduced if any plane in the squad is destroyed, this means that you can still defend yourself. Another thing to notice is that Torpedo Bombers will no longer require the healing consumable, meaning that they'll tank a lot less damage, and if not for all that, it'll be 1 attack wave only, meaning that even if you're hit with 2 floodings, you can DCP and remove all the dot while only sustaining the torpedo damage (which isn't little but it might still be better than endless torpedoes because of the high squad size and the healing those TBs have), at the same time, a well coordinated attack might leave more than a single fire.

Also, the aiming isn't that "easy", it'll be aimed like this (Excuse my poor MS Paint arts):

(Examples using the "specialty plane" of each nation, for reticle sizes, compare it to the ones we already have, each reticle compromises 2 planes so with the non-specialty, only the start would change (and the end in the case of torpedoes))

Spoiler

USN Tiny Tim

image.thumb.png.1a1b5783d41bde34a10978542f8573ba.png

IJN Short Range Torps (The other one would be 8 torpedoes)

image.thumb.png.50bcde745054354b0a195a4f9712b18c.png

RN Carpet Bombers

image.thumb.png.156e8963823dee57c9b96f6e6bb62519.png

Do notice that in-game we only have 1 reticle that just increases or decreases in size, for attacker planes it isn't that noticeable since it's usually a straight path and the aim is fast but for DBs the dispersion is noticeable for moving too much or approaching at the wrong angle.

For those that don't play CV, the initial reticle is so big that in most cases it would be better to land on the ship and fist fight your way, so you have to "aim" which is basically standing still for usually 3~5 seconds deppending on the type or plane and armament.

 

And what about fighters? They are really strange, to not say other things...

Fighters will be changed, there will only be 2 charges for each squad but they'll last for 2 minutes and instead of creating an area with fighters circling around it, they'll circle on high altitudes without showing themselves to the enemy, keeping them hidden but not being able to spot targets other than aircrafts passing through their area of effect, allied players will still be able to see your fighters, they'll take 3 seconds to reach the enemy BOMBER (catapult fighters won't trigger the trap) and kill a plane per second for the size of the fighter squad, they'll also take 5 seconds to set up, the size of a fighter squad will be reduced to 1 at tier 4, 2 to tier 6 and 3 to tier 8 and 10. This seems more like a nerf on the fighter consumable but it'll actually protect a teammate, triggering a T10 trap with 12 specialty planes for example will reduce the number of attacking aircrafts from 8 to 6 in an instant, then it'll be up to the AA to deal with the remaining 9 planes instead of 12, triggering with a non-specialty squad will hurt even more by reducing the attack size to 4 instead of 6.

This way what happens will be:

  • Setting traps for enemy CV that isn't aware and will take heavy losses in the DPS if he lets the fighter reach his planes (3 seconds to reach).
    • The player can still press F to trigger the return for the aircraft, it'll still get some planes killed but it won't have to make a weakenned attack run, probably one that would cost the rest of the planes since the AA would have less targets to focus.
  • Revive the "interceptors" that would come unnoticed by the enemy by using higher altitude and natural cover such as the clouds and the sun.
  • Actually help negating damage on a vulnerable ally since the difference between 6 and 4 attacking planes is quite noticeable, whereas without this suggestions the enemy player would still be able to do 2 attack runs even if triggering a 4~5 fighter.
  • Bring gack some "CV vs CV" battles where you can predict the enemy's target and reduce by a considerable amount the damage it does.
  • Increase in the utility of the +1 fighter skill since this will be the only way to decrease 1 plane from the attack run for specialty planes.
  • Remove the ability to spot targets with consumable fighters (the most important one).

Catapult fighters and escort fighters will be kept as they are, mostly because they'll be able to wipe out even bigger numbers of aircrafts that are leaving and crippling the squad until it's fully restored, see up next.

 

Ok, might reduce maximum alpha and planes survivability...but what about those infinite planes? It's complete [edited] that I destroy a lot of planes and the enemy still launches more and more

First, the CVs will no longer be able to exploit catapulting and reducing the squad size to save planes, this will help a little bit on "deplanning" a CV.

Second, the CVs will no longer have "hangar capacity", instead they'll all have 1 full size squadron (with +2 planes with the mod) and they'll launch the maximum amount of planes available to fill a squad at all time.

  • If you manage to destroy 3 planes and the CV manages to resupply 1, the next same squad he launches will only have 10 planes (considering 12 planes) and the attack squad will be of only 5 or 6 instead of 6 or 8 deppending on specialty.
  • Because of the removal of the hangar capacity, CVs will have a buff in the resupply rate with the base being 40 seconds for those CVs that carried a lot of planes and an increase for the others.
    • Remember that it'll be easier to destroy more planes and if the CV "suicides" with a squad, it'll mean waiting for a long time in order to be able to launch a decent wave of the same squad, for example, a Midway would have to wait 480 seconds to complete another attacker squad (Reduced by mods and captain, it might get around 380~400).

Third, there will be an added delay for CVs at the start of the match already (dev notes) but there would be a need to have another one of 10 seconds (base) to launch another squad, it'll be there in order to let an enemy that has been hit by the last squadron to breathe and reposition themselves and to reduce the DPS since without this suggestion players would take around 10 seconds to make a second attack run on a player while this suggestion is basically doubling the amount of planes per attack run but limiting to only 1.

Fourth, because of the removal of the "hangar capacity", you'll no longer face the same wave two times in a roll, meaning that if you were hit by torpedoes, the next wave of the enemy CV will be attacker or DB unless the CV waits for the squad to return.

Fifth, because of the need to wait for aircrafts to return, those aircrafts will have an increase in the returning speed (makes sense since they dropped the payload and are at higher altitude).

Sixth, there might be a need to increase the survivability of planes against blobbed targets, the changes in this suggestion already reduces the danger of going alone and/or with a partner so stacking 5+ AA will be a big problem for the CV instead since it won't have plane reserves anymore.

 

This suggestion will add a lot of trouble, specially for the historical people out there, but it's needed due to the increase in alpha strike, we can't have Hakuryuu launching waves after waves of 6 torpedoes until the enemy manages to kill the extra 12 that hakuryuu carries.

-----------------------------

Final Words

 

If we take into account the amount of attack waves launched without this suggestion, you'd see a number going around 9 to 12 deppending on the situation of the match, in another topic I made about a flambass video you'll see the analysis of each attack wave, and that was a 20 minutes match for a total of 11 waves and 24 attack runs, this suggestion will reduce this number of attack runs but increase the number of attack waves, on the other hand, it will also make it so CVs have instant impact on vulnerable targets, instead of a lot of attack runs to damage the player, I believe this would help specially the DDs because now a IJN or RN CV for example won't be able to launch wave after wave of attackers to deal with him while at the same time increasing the rewards for being a skilled player at dodging since the enemy CV will only have a single chance. (Topic with Flambass attack waves and runs inside the spoiler).

Spoiler

 

 

The players of old know how much damage we were able to do and how much spot we could have on any match, specially if the enemy chose to get a bomber loadout on the USN CV of old while you picked the "I hate your planes" loadout since this player would get air supremacy and be able to spot everywhere on the map, even going as far as sitting above a DD with their mere 1~3% chance to destroy a fighter per second...against 5 or 7 fighters. The current CV, however, has the possibility to keep playing until the end of the game with the recovery of planes and is able to attack targets that would be untargettable on the pre-rework, it does that by sacrificing damage, air support and somewhat the scout from old times.

 

One of the complaints that is going around is because the popularity of the CV rose. Pre-rework players would hate CVs because they could one-shot almost anyone, but it was so rare to have a CV in the team that the hate wasn't as big as it's now, people seem to be hating CVs because of the constant attacks. Yes, I agree, having played other ships other than the CV gave me sight of a big problem...my ears...it's quite frustrating and annoying to have your ship's mate yelling at you "Torpedoes! Stern!", "We're taking on water quickly"...etc etc...add to that the horrific sound of 30 rockets hitting you in your BB or when a fire goes off...yickes, it looks like those were made just to help the annoyance a CV can do to an enemy, coming from Navyfield it wasn't that big of a deal to me since everything was announced there but for other players, it might be.

Quote

Resultado de imagem para you've got a hole in your left wing Must...use...War thunder joke

 

Another complaint is the "inneficiency" on the AA system...well...it's not "inneficient", the problem lies in the amount of planes those CV carries, you think you're under constant fire of the same planes but you know that you killed 3~4 planes, it's just that because of the high reserves, they seem infinite, this suggestion will fix this by showing you that by killing 8 dive bombers for example, you'll only see dive bombers again after some time instead of being met by another wave while the first one is still returning to the aircraft.

 

--------------------------

 

 

I hope people read and actually comment/discuss if those changes would make the game more enjoyable instead of posting their usual "CV is OP" or "CV is bad" that is probably on a macro for most players or automatically downvote because it's a CV thread, I really want to know what other features I should be "adding" or changing and see what the community think that is "balanced". I really want CVs to work in the game because to me and others, this is the class that is "good" to play and kill some time and because of that I have no problems spending 3+ hours typing and fantasizing about a "world where CVs and other ships coexists", yes I could go play other games that might offer the CV experience (spoiler alert, there aren't) but WoWs has so much to offer, including other ships to play (I might be a CV main but I also play other ships).

 

But why are you doing this in those forums filled with haters everywhere? You're just going to get hurt.

When I was young I wanted to become a game developer and make games that people would want to play, but then I started growing older and learned that taxes and bills don't pay by themselves and the gaming market is saturated (and finding a sucessful game developer in my country is...well...), so I changed my way of approach and decided to first get stabilize my financial condition and then start building a gaming company, thus, while I'm waiting for the internship (can't search, really need to wait...) I keep the dream alive by trying to see and fix the problem with other games...of course without the power to do a thing about those problems. And a feedback is a feedback, be it either good or bad, it can still be used to improve.

image.png

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,392
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,056 posts
17,200 battles

There are only 3 viable solutions to the CV use in game. 

1. Remove them altogether.

2. Return to the RTS version with reduced damage by bombs and torps. Then adjust from there.

3. Develop a special mode using the RTS system but make the maps larger with real time and distance scale. The opponents will have to search for one another then attempt to get in gunnery range while their CVs whittle each other down until out of aircraft. Such that if one isn't very good and lucky ie Midway ones is screwed.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,977
[HYDRO]
Members
3,560 posts
5,062 battles

There are some good ideas, but you aren't helping the expression  of your ideas much by writing such a lengthy post.

Just my 2 cents and no offence as at certain points I had to force myself to keep on reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
270
[SAINT]
[SAINT]
Members
639 posts
12,895 battles

mb5hn.jpg

I did read all of that but seriously just restrict battles to one carrier per team. I just don't want to get harassed non stop for an entire match by two carriers. Easy peasy. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. 

 origin.gif

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[H_]
Members
2,419 posts

OP, well done and I read it....  Bottom line up front: we are still mixing classes of weapons....  And, that in and of itself, creates a real issue (real risk)....  Every arcade shooter has this pop up after a few years.  Player experience and population shifts create the need to "balance" and then, sale get messed up with the only solution being "gimmicks" and "manipulation of balance": selling OP to charge sales...  We are there. 

The WW2=esk, mature player, slow and small map shooter wasn't profitable enough........so, our host went to the "Like" generation of players and started evolving the game, aimed at what the kids want......where the micro-transaction real money is.....where, gimmicks are the reason they aren't bored.  They need constant stimulation...  OP, they haven't studied a day of WW2 history in their schools.  Their Great Grandparents are all but gone and there are no more WW2 stories told: person to person...

While you are looking for an internship, I'm at the other end of that process.....  I lecture on Innovation and cultural change systems....and, I'm retired now.......new games are self learning and self adapting to each and every player's need !  Knowledge based, AI driven games are coming and I've talked about some of the prototypes I've encountered at Innovation and Investor gatherings in earlier posts....   What we have in this game is an antique process, doing old school stuff, in a low technology platform and using sales paradigms from the 90's and 2000's....   If they were daring, they would have gone the "other way" instead of gimmicks and OP/Meta sales, they would have reverted back to WW2 quality: ships, game modes, campaigns based on history and then, started to talk about game mode changes with the "Boomers" instead of the "Like generation..."  That, would have set them up in a unique small market niche, and their "Strategy Canvas" (look that up if you are seeking an internship...) that set them apart, not competing with more modern games that refined the gimmicks and Micro-transactions processes.....  As a movie once said:  "show me the money...."  The Boomers have it well beyond any of the follow on generations and yet, many are afraid to invest in them because they are Millennial's and resent that money....  It's where we are and your ideas are good.......but, you should read all of Toffler's works and this "fourth wave" is killing the game....  Good job and well thought through ! 

I forgot, we need a "Blue Ocean" solution to remain more than viable.........and, the pun is intended if you know about Blue Ocean strategies......  a great read and required reading in many of the Innovation programs I've crossed paths with....

Edited by Asym_KS
add a sentence I forgot
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
667 posts
2,455 battles
40 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

There are only 3 viable solutions to the CV use in game. 

1. Remove them altogether.

2. Return to the RTS version with reduced damage by bombs and torps. Then adjust from there.

3. Develop a special mode using the RTS system but make the maps larger with real time and distance scale. The opponents will have to search for one another then attempt to get in gunnery range while their CVs whittle each other down until out of aircraft. Such that if one isn't very good and lucky ie Midway ones is screwed.

1- I believe that removing them will be a desperate measure instead of a fix, but I can clearly see it happening in the future if people remain unsatisfied and sales start tanking.

2- Returning to the RTS version would be a retrocess, even if they remove the fighters (and CV vs CV combat that made CVs deciding factors) for the "average player", it would still be a problem because of the way old spotting and damage was done.

3- I think this would go against the idea of fast paced action shooter of WoWs

44 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

There are some good ideas, but you aren't helping the expression  of your ideas much by writing such a lengthy post.

Just my 2 cents and no offence as at certain points I had to force myself to keep on reading.

Sorry to hear that, english isn't my native language so I often write more than I should to try and explain things to not make any mistake. I'll keep that in mind if I ever do something like that again.

40 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

It's too long.

Yes, I tried to cover as many topics as possible, it just wouldn't do much if I said "CV, 8 planes per attack run, 12 planes squad", sorry for that.

32 minutes ago, Jolly_Rodgered said:

I did read all of that but seriously just restrict battles to one carrier per team. I just don't want to get harassed non stop for an entire match by two carriers. Easy peasy. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. 

The problem is the MM, making 1 carrier per team outside of T10 matches is extremely hard due to CV popularity right now, if it was limited to 1 per team then the new CV players would have to wait too long to enter a match.

13 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

OP, well done and I read it....  Bottom line up front: we are still mixing classes of weapons....  And, that in and of itself, creates a real issue (real risk)....  Every arcade shooter has this pop up after a few years.  Player experience and population shifts create the need to "balance" and then, sale get messed up with the only solution being "gimmicks" and "manipulation of balance": selling OP to charge sales...  We are there. 

The WW2=esk, mature player, slow and small map shooter wasn't profitable enough........so, our host went to the "Like" generation of players and started evolving the game, aimed at what the kids want......where the micro-transaction real money is.....where, gimmicks are the reason they aren't bored.  They need constant stimulation...  OP, they haven't studied a day of WW2 history in their schools.  Their Great Grandparents are all but gone and there are no more WW2 stories told: person to person...

While you are looking for an internship, I'm at the other end of that process.....  I lecture on Innovation and cultural change systems....and, I'm retired now.......new games are self learning and self adapting to each and every player's need !  Knowledge based, AI driven games are coming and I've talked about some of the prototypes I've encountered at Innovation and Investor gatherings in earlier posts....   What we have in this game is an antique process, doing old school stuff, in a low technology platform and using sales paradigms from the 90's and 2000's....   If they were daring, they would have gone the "other way" instead of gimmicks and OP/Meta sales, they would have reverted back to WW2 quality: ships, game modes, campaigns based on history and then, started to talk about game mode changes with the "Boomers" instead of the "Like generation..."  That, would have set them up in a unique small market niche, and their "Strategy Canvas" (look that up if you are seeking an internship...) that set them apart, not competing with more modern games that refined the gimmicks and Micro-transactions processes.....  As a movie once said:  "show me the money...."  The Boomers have it well beyond any of the follow on generations and yet, many are afraid to invest in them because they are Millennial's and resent that money....  It's where we are and your ideas are good.......but, you should read all of Toffler's works and this "fourth wave" is killing the game....  Good job and well thought through ! 

I forgot, we need a "Blue Ocean" solution to remain more than viable.........and, the pun is intended if you know about Blue Ocean strategies......  a great read and required reading in many of the Innovation programs I've crossed paths with....

Hey, thank you for all that, I strongly believe in what you say, the gaming market nowadays is always targetting the big population, that being the kids and teens, even blizzard started to crumble it's fanbase by trying to get a grab on the big market before it's too hard (mobile phones), thinking in finances it's the best move, but think as a company, it might be the deciding factor of a downfall. I think that WoWs isn't at this stage yet mostly because it could be considered the only game of this genre, not even War Thunder can reach into WoWs level right now because how different it is to make simulation with big ships and small ones (I can just imagine a 410mm HE completely destroying a DD in war thunder since 1 ton bombs are devastating even if you're at some distance from the explosion.

 

19 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Just to summarize

Revert back to patch 0.8.0

No, of course not, getting back to RTS would mean throwing all the balance through the window, the best CV would overcome the other and decide every match he was in...I know this because how easy it was to wipe out squads doing strafe runs...sometimes the enemy didn't even know what a strafing was.
If it goes back to pre-rework it'll be hell for the average player and if it is for the patch 0.8.0 then CVs will dominate once again with the tons of exploits that WG is trying to fix all the time.

-----------

Thank you all for the feedback, I'll try to get better at some stuffs (not only for forum but also for life, as some said, the text was long and some ideas wasn't passed as I wish it was).

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,444
[WORX]
Members
5,030 posts
15,593 battles
1 minute ago, ALROCHA said:

No, of course not, getting back to RTS would mean throwing all the balance through the window

:Smile_facepalm: Oh boy!

I never stated revert back to RTS CV. I did say revert back to patch 0.8.0, the pinnacle of what could've been for the CV class...

ALROCHA, you had me read your book of a post, at least you can do is figure out the patch notes for 0.8.0!

Come on man.... The word of the day, journalism.

Either way I forgive you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
756
[WDS]
Members
1,780 posts
8,959 battles
1 hour ago, Jolly_Rodgered said:

mb5hn.jpg

I did read all of that but seriously just restrict battles to one carrier per team. I just don't want to get harassed non stop for an entire match by two carriers. Easy peasy. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. 

 origin.gif

Now that's funny thanks +1...….. Especially after so many boring CV threads !!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,392
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,056 posts
17,200 battles

@ALROCHA The fast paced shooter is fine for the gunnery and torpedo armed ships in the scaling used now. Surface gunnery engagements could not occur until opponents came with in range of one another. 

CV taskforce engagements do not fit that scaling. CVs purpose was to find the enemy and strike them while defending their own taskforce as they moved toward gunnery range. The current scaling fails to represent that except for the spotting aspect. Longer battle times and greater distances would better represent this. I feel that hardcore players would accept the longer battle times for the more realistic representation of CV dependent engagements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Members
1,391 posts
6,642 battles

Could a Non-CV mode be feasible, from MM point of view? 

Select it and no carriers will ever appear on the battles. By the same token, if you have carriers in your port, they will be "greyed-out" on the carrousel.

Because, and I am being 100% honest/not sarcastic, this will be the only way everyone will be happy.:etc_red_button:
Well, except maybe WG staff who would have to deal with the MM programming....:cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[VCRUZ]
Members
3,303 posts
8,136 battles

From what i understand, OP is changing how the attack works, but this is not the issue with CVs. The "fix" CVs and make them balanced, WG needs to:

- Rework the AA system: The current AA system is pure garbage, the effectiveness of AA depens on how good or bad the CV player is. Bad CV players get destroyed by AA. Good CV players can pretty much ignore AA. Rework the AA system so the player can have some kind of actual control over the AA. 

- Rework concelament/spotting mechanics: CVs can render concealment useless, this can be extremely frustrating for many DDs and cruisers. 

- Some kind of range/time limit to planes and maybe some kind of "air terrain". This way CVs would have their impact limited around the map. Planes cannot go anywhere on the map and they would need to "respect" terrain, as any other ship. 

 

 

 To compensate CVs, WG could:

- Increasee replenishment rate of planes, CVs would lose more planes but they would replenish much faster;

- Make planes faster and/or more agile;

- Better concealment and/or plate armor to CV so they can take more agressive positioning;

- Maybe increasse the DoT or alpha on some of the planes;

 

*** Something that i would like to see is figher control, so CVs could actively counter each other. But this could bring back some of the old issues of RTS CVs where one CV player would dominate the other. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[NSEW]
Members
1,208 posts

Without discrediting the posters/readers/WG/etc. 

This is what we are aware of so far. The CV rework will not revert back to pre 0.8.0 stage; i.e. RTS style. I believe this is mostly confirmed by the WG.  So there really isn't any point in stretching out archaic discussions about why we should return to RTS/pre-0.8.0 era. It is just a waste of time.

Another point that I personally find that is counter productive are statements that are just irrelevant. Such as "take all CV's out of the game". Carriers are here to stay, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that I support either side of the argument (for nor against). I just see the facts. We all just need to be more productive by taking such notions away from our minds. Accept that Carriers are here to stay, move forward with it not regressing.

Quite another point we must endure, is that this game is not marketed to a niche group of players (in an ideal world it would be perfectly so).  It is a mass online game approach. A mass market of whole pie, rather than a slice. Therefore, we can't assume that WG will alter their course willy nilly on a macro level. Conversely, on a micro level. We may have a small input, but that in itself is still quite a very small factor considering the overall scheme.

 

Currently, what I've read that is more on the "productive" scale of balance of arguments. Are the discrepancies between tiers. I've ready many threads/posts advocating for T8/T9 matchmaking. Not everyone can incur 100k average damage per game in their T8 Carrier play. Those that do are niche. Again, this is a mass whole pie vs a slice mentality. Hopefully, and ideally I personally would prefer to see a T8 CV with +1 MM. As opposed to T8 +1/-1.  Will that mean CV players will be on 'hold' for a bit longer for games? Most likely, but with the reintroductions of T8 CVs back into the pool. I suspect that it will be a feasible option/route. 

Plane damage vs Destroyers. Is another subject I've read many times here. No one have been immune to T10 CV attacking your T8 DDs. I have been on the receiving end countless times. Perhaps enough to put me off playing a DD at that Tier. However, since my goal is to reach my Jutland. I will endure the massive HP strikes I would incur per attack runs by CVs. 

Plane damage vs Cruisers without good AA.  I do not see an issue here. I can't think of any T8 plus cruisers having a very difficult time, if played well. 

Plane damage vs Battleships without good AA. Same as cruisers. BBs inherently have largest health pool. They can endure the attacks provided they are not singled out alone in open water. 

As for Carrier users. Things have muted down since the original rework patch days. Some may argue otherwise, that is your prerogative. I believe that CV's ability to damage have tapered down some. Specially with the way the game is mostly played. Ships massing together to stack the AA coverage (this was a thing before as well, just with different methods). But this time, due to the perceived 'unlimited' attacks from squadrons in the air. Players will huddle up even more, and when they do. The survival rate of your planes are drastically reduced. Unless of course you are a really good player, which is a niche thing. 

 

Where did I want to go with this semi-wall-o'-text...I forget.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Members
1,391 posts
6,642 battles
10 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Without discrediting the posters/readers/WG/etc. 

This is what we are aware of so far. The CV rework will not revert back to pre 0.8.0 stage; i.e. RTS style. I believe this is mostly confirmed by the WG.  So there really isn't any point in stretching out archaic discussions about why we should return to RTS/pre-0.8.0 era. It is just a waste of time.

Another point that I personally find that is counter productive are statements that are just irrelevant. Such as "take all CV's out of the game". Carriers are here to stay, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that I support either side of the argument (for nor against). I just see the facts. We all just need to be more productive by taking such notions away from our minds. Accept that Carriers are here to stay, move forward with it not regressing.

Quite another point we must endure, is that this game is not marketed to a niche group of players (in an ideal world it would be perfectly so).  It is a mass online game approach. A mass market of whole pie, rather than a slice. Therefore, we can't assume that WG will alter their course willy nilly on a macro level. Conversely, on a micro level. We may have a small input, but that in itself is still quite a very small factor considering the overall scheme.

 

Currently, what I've read that is more on the "productive" scale of balance of arguments. Are the discrepancies between tiers. I've ready many threads/posts advocating for T8/T9 matchmaking. Not everyone can incur 100k average damage per game in their T8 Carrier play. Those that do are niche. Again, this is a mass whole pie vs a slice mentality. Hopefully, and ideally I personally would prefer to see a T8 CV with +1 MM. As opposed to T8 +1/-1.  Will that mean CV players will be on 'hold' for a bit longer for games? Most likely, but with the reintroductions of T8 CVs back into the pool. I suspect that it will be a feasible option/route. 

Plane damage vs Destroyers. Is another subject I've read many times here. No one have been immune to T10 CV attacking your T8 DDs. I have been on the receiving end countless times. Perhaps enough to put me off playing a DD at that Tier. However, since my goal is to reach my Jutland. I will endure the massive HP strikes I would incur per attack runs by CVs. 

Plane damage vs Cruisers without good AA.  I do not see an issue here. I can't think of any T8 plus cruisers having a very difficult time, if played well. 

Plane damage vs Battleships without good AA. Same as cruisers. BBs inherently have largest health pool. They can endure the attacks provided they are not singled out alone in open water. 

As for Carrier users. Things have muted down since the original rework patch days. Some may argue otherwise, that is your prerogative. I believe that CV's ability to damage have tapered down some. Specially with the way the game is mostly played. Ships massing together to stack the AA coverage (this was a thing before as well, just with different methods). But this time, due to the perceived 'unlimited' attacks from squadrons in the air. Players will huddle up even more, and when they do. The survival rate of your planes are drastically reduced. Unless of course you are a really good player, which is a niche thing. 

Ran outta upvotes so: :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,254
[NG-NL]
Members
5,872 posts
9,520 battles

The old RTS was fine, only needed change was remove fighters altogether from CVs and adjust a captain skill or module so particular national ship lines could get a 20-40% bonus to AA DPS. However, WG wanted to make CVs more dynamic, so they invested in this successful FPS version.

Chief issue is they keep nerfing CVs. Rework was supposed to make them more accessible to average players, but now they're taking it back. First blanket nerfs to IJN TB when only Haku's TB needed a few adjustments. Then nerfing rocket planes when the issue was DDs foolishly yoloing away from support. Then buffing every class's air concealment instead of, say, put a 6-second rendering delay so that CV spotting is less dangerous to DDs. Now an upcoming nerf so T6/8/10 carriers must wait before launching.

Patching exploits like the one that ensured DB could consistently get hits was also foolish on WG's part. DB attacks are limited, so they need to count. It's very frustrating to make a good aim in my Furious or Haku and poof! only 1 bomb hits.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,115
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,140 posts
9,473 battles
7 hours ago, ALROCHA said:

There are ships that I can only do 1 meek strike even with 12 planes because his AA is too OP

*looks at Minotaur 1K+ continuous AA* yeah, thatll do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,115
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,140 posts
9,473 battles
5 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

There are only 3 viable solutions to the CV use in game. 

1. Remove them altogether.

2. Return to the RTS version with reduced damage by bombs and torps. Then adjust from there.

3. Develop a special mode using the RTS system but make the maps larger with real time and distance scale. The opponents will have to search for one another then attempt to get in gunnery range while their CVs whittle each other down until out of aircraft. Such that if one isn't very good and lucky ie Midway ones is screwed.

and i can personally guarantee you with infinite certainty that #1 will NEVER be considered or done

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
294 posts
6,646 battles

Copious amount of profuse verbiage.

Seriously, just offer an opt out option already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
667 posts
2,455 battles
4 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

:Smile_facepalm: Oh boy!

I never stated revert back to RTS CV. I did say revert back to patch 0.8.0, the pinnacle of what could've been for the CV class...

ALROCHA, you had me read your book of a post, at least you can do is figure out the patch notes for 0.8.0!

Come on man.... The word of the day, journalism.

Either way I forgive you.

Sorry, but it was at 0.8.0 that everyone but CVs had problems and I wouldn't expect anyone, even CV mains to want that time back, even I playing as CV could see the problem as clear as water when my T8 were surviving 3~4+ AA without taking a dent, just by imagining the F spam and how much cries it'll bring back...sorry if it sounded too offensive, but if people are still crying even with all the bug fixes, imagine what would happen with planes not having decrease in accuracy doing curves or the return of the flying shima? People would be quitting in waves.

Unless I'm getting something wrong here, wasn't this like CV rework day? When planes were immortal, there was no delay in the return key, spotting was big for everyone and planes could turn all day without losing accuracy? And to tell the truth, I didn't manage to play that much since I had to embark on the next day for the Navy program in my country.

 

3 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@ALROCHA The fast paced shooter is fine for the gunnery and torpedo armed ships in the scaling used now. Surface gunnery engagements could not occur until opponents came with in range of one another. 

CV taskforce engagements do not fit that scaling. CVs purpose was to find the enemy and strike them while defending their own taskforce as they moved toward gunnery range. The current scaling fails to represent that except for the spotting aspect. Longer battle times and greater distances would better represent this. I feel that hardcore players would accept the longer battle times for the more realistic representation of CV dependent engagements. 

Yes, but like Asym_KS said, this increase in time and distance would keep the "public" away, by public I mean the younger generation of fast paced games, what WG would need to do to evaluate if this is possible is to acess their playerbase and see if it's worth the shot to increase "realism" in order to try and make a class playable without problems into their sales.

I personally wouldn't mind for example to have bigger maps, maybe even bigger player on each side with bigger points and time, but honestly, this would result in some problems:

  • The CV complaints would still be there, specially now that the map is bigger and you wouldn't be able to reach the enemy CV before him killing you.
  • The increase in time and distance would also mean that if a team gets "owned", the surviving members will have a hard time and the other team will have to test their patience against the ones on the back.

And probably many others...but again, doable, if applied correctly it would bring more space for plays.

3 hours ago, Cruiser_SanJuan said:

Could a Non-CV mode be feasible, from MM point of view? 

Select it and no carriers will ever appear on the battles. By the same token, if you have carriers in your port, they will be "greyed-out" on the carrousel.

Because, and I am being 100% honest/not sarcastic, this will be the only way everyone will be happy.:etc_red_button:
Well, except maybe WG staff who would have to deal with the MM programming....:cap_hmm:

The problem would be the other players that want to play CV, they'd have to play only against other CVs, which is as easy as hitting a BB citadel with Harugumo, CV AA is strong at normal but you can even reinforce it by 60% to become a fortress against air raids.

To be honest, I don't see many players wanting to play against CVs in the current form, even though all the utility of a CV has been decreased and it's easier to dodge torpedoes now.

3 hours ago, Xlap said:

From what i understand, OP is changing how the attack works, but this is not the issue with CVs. The "fix" CVs and make them balanced, WG needs to:

- Rework the AA system: The current AA system is pure garbage, the effectiveness of AA depens on how good or bad the CV player is. Bad CV players get destroyed by AA. Good CV players can pretty much ignore AA. Rework the AA system so the player can have some kind of actual control over the AA. 

- Rework concelament/spotting mechanics: CVs can render concealment useless, this can be extremely frustrating for many DDs and cruisers. 

- Some kind of range/time limit to planes and maybe some kind of "air terrain". This way CVs would have their impact limited around the map. Planes cannot go anywhere on the map and they would need to "respect" terrain, as any other ship. 

 

 

 To compensate CVs, WG could:

- Increasee replenishment rate of planes, CVs would lose more planes but they would replenish much faster;

- Make planes faster and/or more agile;

- Better concealment and/or plate armor to CV so they can take more agressive positioning;

- Maybe increasse the DoT or alpha on some of the planes;

 

*** Something that i would like to see is figher control, so CVs could actively counter each other. But this could bring back some of the old issues of RTS CVs where one CV player would dominate the other. 

I tried to adress most of the problems, not only by changing how attack works, but how plane kills are rewarded.

Yes, I agree that the current AA is just like the old AA....maybe worse since you can't focus fire planes anymore, I also agree that we could have a need for manual AA guns, but then it would be a problem for the player because it would one more thing to manage, there are some that wouldn't even stop to learn the new AA mechanic since we still have people that don't know what is the symbol of a torpedo plane.

The concealment/spotting I covered would be reduced just because fighters would no longer spot and the CV only have 1 attack run, so he either spot longer without attacking or just attack and spot for a lot less than what we have right now, which make the target spotted until the end of all the attack runs.

Adding a time limit on the CVs could be like fuel, like one suggestion I gave in another topic is to give planes something that would be consumed normally while cruising and the W and S boost would drain this gauge, meaning that planes would be able to reach a place faster while on full bost but would have less time to perform their actions, or they could just cruise there and do what they need to do. As for the distance, it would be implicit in the time limit.

 

About the compensations, with the suggestion it would make it so you can't just ditch out some extra planes to save them or having a large spare pool, thus, the big squad would get damaged more by flak and because of that, the replenishment buff for CVs, it's exactly as you say, they lose more but also replenish more.

Making planes faster would bring more troubles, people already think the planes are fast enough, even though they fly at lower speed than historically portrayed, I do agree though that if the enemy gets manual AA, there will be a need to more agile planes.

More plate on some CVs would be a double edged sword, while it could protect from some, it would also increase the damage taken by others like high caliber AP shells. I think that just adding an attack range of 25km (closer than Yamato's) would be enough, you could stay 5km away from the fleet and attack targets 20km from them, it can't be too low because of enemy planes and it can't be too high because it wouldn't make sense, the 25km would of course get shorter if we follow the "fuel" suggestion.

 

Fighter controll is always a problem, mostly to the "not so good" player, it means they can be denied from doing damage, while other ships can't be (only by active maneuvering and aim). It would also mean even faster planes and the spotting would once again be screwed.

3 hours ago, Reymu said:

The old RTS was fine, only needed change was remove fighters altogether from CVs and adjust a captain skill or module so particular national ship lines could get a 20-40% bonus to AA DPS. However, WG wanted to make CVs more dynamic, so they invested in this successful FPS version.

Chief issue is they keep nerfing CVs. Rework was supposed to make them more accessible to average players, but now they're taking it back. First blanket nerfs to IJN TB when only Haku's TB needed a few adjustments. Then nerfing rocket planes when the issue was DDs foolishly yoloing away from support. Then buffing every class's air concealment instead of, say, put a 6-second rendering delay so that CV spotting is less dangerous to DDs. Now an upcoming nerf so T6/8/10 carriers must wait before launching.

Patching exploits like the one that ensured DB could consistently get hits was also foolish on WG's part. DB attacks are limited, so they need to count. It's very frustrating to make a good aim in my Furious or Haku and poof! only 1 bomb hits.

The old RTS was bad for the "not so good player", we couldn't have people being deplanned and unable to play a game, no other ship has ever had their weaponry all destructed, from all my time playing the maximum I got were 2 turrets on the mogami and that's it. I also believe that the old RTS will not make an appearance mostly because FPS is more user friendly and popular than the RTS, where you have to have macro and micro management and we aren't a community of starcraft players with insane macro/micro.

Yes, they keep on nerfing CVs, it's really a big problem, specially when they can't just nerf what is troubling, some nerf that you cited though were needed, rockets are still deadly on DDs but it just needs time to prepare, if they hadn't nerfed this you could even target DDs in a blob and get a lot of damage in a class that doesn't have much HP to begin with. The buff of concealment was also undeserved...at least to the point they did, of course that 9km detection range was too much for cruisers but 6km is also too short.

I think that the nerf for launching can be a good thing for everyone, CVs striking on the first minute is really obnoxious, not to say unnecessary, when most ships are still on their respawn, the only thing they should do though is buff a little bit of the speed to "balance" this waiting time.

The exploit on the DB was extremely needed, it removed all the "RNG" in aiming, yes I know it was harder to pull it off, but still, scoring 6 bomb hits on a moving broadside DD was just too much.

15 minutes ago, Ramagar_RoK said:

Copious amount of profuse verbiage.

Seriously, just offer an opt out option already.

 

This would create the problem with CVs not being able to play the game due to the lack of players that are eager to play against a CV.

 

----------

 

To everyone, sorry if there were mistypes or "agressive" messages there, I'm really sleepy right now so I couldn't double check everything, sorry to all and good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,392
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,056 posts
17,200 battles

@ALROCHA fast paced action shooter do indeed attract and keep hyperactive youngsters, like my grandson and few older folks who still have exceptional hand eye coordination and reflexes. There is also a market of those who like a slower paced strategy with more realism. The three World of XXXX games are great on the realism for the vehicle and terrain models. Since they have done so well with time/distance scaling as we have now they should not have any difficulty adjusting the numbers in those formulas to say change them by 1/2 for a selectable mode. This would increase time/distance scaling effectively doubling map size, ranges and change battle times from 20 to 40 minutes. Not unreasonable. I do not know the constraint for the 12 ships per side. I do know that WoT has a special mode now for 30 tanks per team. So WoWs should be able to double team sizes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
667 posts
2,455 battles
2 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@ALROCHA fast paced action shooter do indeed attract and keep hyperactive youngsters, like my grandson and few older folks who still have exceptional hand eye coordination and reflexes. There is also a market of those who like a slower paced strategy with more realism. The three World of XXXX games are great on the realism for the vehicle and terrain models. Since they have done so well with time/distance scaling as we have now they should not have any difficulty adjusting the numbers in those formulas to say change them by 1/2 for a selectable mode. This would increase time/distance scaling effectively doubling map size, ranges and change battle times from 20 to 40 minutes. Not unreasonable. I do not know the constraint for the 12 ships per side. I do know that WoT has a special mode now for 30 tanks per team. So WoWs should be able to double team sizes. 

I hope it does happen, more ships in a match means more battles and opportunities for both DDs and CVs alike.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×