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

Creative solution to CV 'problems'

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles

Its pretty simple really, not overly difficult to implement but perhaps hard for WG to wrap their heads around as this is outside the box thinking. Im sure the 'burn the witch' group of players cant wrap their heads around any solution that involves the witch surviving lol.

Bigger maps, more ships, same battle time, same number of CV's.....preferably 1, max 2 (although 1 is likely best) per team. Maps could be 25% larger, have 4 more ships per team and allow divisions of 4 players instead of 3. Camping may (MAY!) become less of an issue because players will be forced to move unlike now where a Yamato's gun range covers most of a map from where it spawns. This could also force CV's to move more (and stop the newbies from parking in a corner!) to cut down on flight times and for self preservation in what may become a more fluid battle environment.

Its unlikely that CV damage output would change much, more ships doesnt necessarily mean more attacks but what it does accomplish is spread out those attacks over more ships. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
194
[R-R-R]
Members
1,027 posts
8,370 battles

CV player in queue vs total player in queue is greater than 1:12. If you make every game 16 vs 16, you will simply get even more double CV game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
Just now, Exciton8964 said:

CV player in queue vs total player in queue is greater than 1:12. If you make every game 16 vs 16, you will simply get even more double CV game.

Thats partly because of the sale of prem CV's, but like I said, 1 CV per team is best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,412 posts
8,793 battles

Given the immense speed advantages planes have over surface ships, significantly larger maps would probably just amplify the power of CV's.  Their ability to redirect their firepower and scouting to the opposite flank in less than a minute would be even more potent than it is now.

Having more ships in each battle but with the same number of CV's would reduce the odds that you'd be picked on, but it wouldn't solve the underlying problem that the interaction between CV's and surface ships is still one-sided, non-interactive and frustrating for the surface ship player.  He gets to attack you, utilizing all his skills as a player to maximum effect, and you get to hope your AA gunner bots defend you, and even if they do, all you've done is shot down some expendable planes while the CV itself remains undamaged.  There's still a very lopsided distribution of power, risk and skill expression, which is not enjoyable in a PvP contest.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
5 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Given the immense speed advantages planes have over surface ships, significantly larger maps would probably just amplify the power of CV's.  Their ability to redirect their firepower and scouting to the opposite flank in less than a minute would be even more potent than it is now.

Having more ships in each battle but with the same number of CV's would reduce the odds that you'd be picked on, but it wouldn't solve the underlying problem that the interaction between CV's and surface ships is still one-sided, non-interactive and frustrating for the surface ship player.  He gets to attack you, utilizing all his skills as a player to maximum effect, and you get to hope your AA gunner bots defend you, and even if they do, all you've done is shot down some expendable planes while the CV itself remains undamaged.  There's still a very lopsided distribution of power, risk and skill expression, which is not enjoyable in a PvP contest.

Well thats all on WG for not creating an effective AA interface and for their desire to keep the game simple, basically a hangover from the original desire to have WoT on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,127
[SALVO]
Members
21,703 posts
22,016 battles
2 hours ago, hipcanuck said:

Well thats all on WG for not creating an effective AA interface and for their desire to keep the game simple, basically a hangover from the original desire to have WoT on water.

There's nothing wrong with keeping the game simple.  Nothing at all.  If anything, they could make the AA sector interface simpler to improve it, by just using either a single key to cycle through the possible settings, or 3-4 keys to handle AA sectors.

3 Keys:

  • Left arrow: reinforce port AA
  • Up arrow: balance AA
  • Right arrow: reinforce starboard AA

And a possible 4th key:

  • Down arrow: turn on/off AA and secondaries.

 

And there you have it.  Use the 4 arrow keys to handle AA and it's quite simple, without having to use a mouse.

 

Please take note of this idea, @Gneisenau013

 

Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,556 posts
10,704 battles
1 hour ago, hipcanuck said:

Its pretty simple really, not overly difficult to implement but perhaps hard for WG to wrap their heads around as this is outside the box thinking. Im sure the 'burn the witch' group of players cant wrap their heads around any solution that involves the witch surviving lol.

Bigger maps, more ships, same battle time, same number of CV's.....preferably 1, max 2 (although 1 is likely best) per team. Maps could be 25% larger, have 4 more ships per team and allow divisions of 4 players instead of 3. Camping may (MAY!) become less of an issue because players will be forced to move unlike now where a Yamato's gun range covers most of a map from where it spawns. This could also force CV's to move more (and stop the newbies from parking in a corner!) to cut down on flight times and for self preservation in what may become a more fluid battle environment.

Its unlikely that CV damage output would change much, more ships doesnt necessarily mean more attacks but what it does accomplish is spread out those attacks over more ships. 

maps are scaled to time compression. By increasing the map size you would, in fact, have to increase time compression thus the effect is negated. If you don't increase the time compression you will be in an even worse situation then we are in now. It will take longer for every ship to get anywhere thus cv's stay alive longer, dd's will never push caps and cruisers and bbs will still hang back because to keep up with the dd to push and objective they will leave a long string of isolated targets along the way that a cv will feast on. So caps will not be capped, dds will get no support, aa is stil lacking in any defensive purpose and bbs are now more isolated to attack 1v1 by cv's...Not much of a solution if im being honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
444 posts
3,695 battles
50 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Well thats all on WG for not creating an effective AA interface and for their desire to keep the game simple, basically a hangover from the original desire to have WoT on water.

Why dId you write "effective AA Interface" when what you actually mean is over effective AA that completely shuts down a CV from being able to attack and stops them from playing the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
47 minutes ago, X__QC__X said:

Why dId you write "effective AA Interface" when what you actually mean is over effective AA that completely shuts down a CV from being able to attack and stops them from playing the game?

And finally one of the 'burn the witch' players shows up. I'd reply with something constructive but clearly thats not why you came here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
57 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

maps are scaled to time compression. By increasing the map size you would, in fact, have to increase time compression thus the effect is negated. If you don't increase the time compression you will be in an even worse situation then we are in now. It will take longer for every ship to get anywhere thus cv's stay alive longer, dd's will never push caps and cruisers and bbs will still hang back because to keep up with the dd to push and objective they will leave a long string of isolated targets along the way that a cv will feast on. So caps will not be capped, dds will get no support, aa is stil lacking in any defensive purpose and bbs are now more isolated to attack 1v1 by cv's...Not much of a solution if im being honest.

Interesting that WG tied map size to time compression.....arent some maps smaller? How would that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,519
[SYN]
Members
15,354 posts
12,506 battles

I think the bombers that take damage shouldn't recover to max HP the moment they land on the CV, which may as well be the moment they elevate above AA.

Instead, they should take a while regenerate HP.

Like, seriously, how does a bomber with 1HP make it back to the CV, get reprinted back its remaining 1099HP?

What? does the CV only require the pilot? Is that how this works?

So I guess that slower aircraft regen for getting shot down is because the pilot has to swim 40km back to the CV

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,023
[WOLFB]
Members
2,868 posts
11,787 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

3 Keys:

left arrow: reinforce port AA

up arrow: balance AA

right arrow: reinforce starboard AA

 

And a possible 4th key:

down arrow: turn on/off AA and secondaries.

 

And there you have it.  Use the 4 arrow keys to handle AA and it's quite simple, without having to use a mouse.

 

 

WG take note this. This would be much more better than the current system

Edited by AlcatrazNC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
444 posts
3,695 battles
54 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

And finally one of the 'burn the witch' players shows up. I'd reply with something constructive but clearly thats not why you came here.

if I was one I would not have just made the following suggestion in another thread.

 

Quote

Also the surface ship needs to have to use some kind of skill to shoot down planes. All this needs to be is a system where you use either your surface ships scope or 3rd person camera facing direction to set a marker by simply pressing a button. The marker would be representing the center of an AA flak firing arc that is a 30 degree arc which has concentrated flak bursts at its center just like how it works now only it doesn't use the aircraft heading to set it self up only the surface ships marker. However, it does change distance dynamically with the distance the squadron in the arc is away from the ship so when it sets up the position of the next burst it is always in front of the aircraft squadron in terms of distance even if they are flying away. When the surface ship player moves the AA marker the arc should take time to get to the new designated spot so the CV player has a chance to counter play it by shifting direction of flight. The only constant AA damage that is done should be from the AOE flak balls within the 30 degree arc which have light damage increasing to heavy damage the closer to the flak bursts center you get. The warning the current system gives you by showing tracer to where the bursts are about to start should be kept for the new system to give you that warning so you can start to shift your squadrons direction.

The whole system would work around the fact that the 30 degree arc is where the AA is strongest (I am talking severely heavy AA that could shut down a squadron if it stays within the arc for to long) with it having constant damage on the aircraft because they are always flying through some AOE damage from the flak bursts if the surface ship makes sure to keep switching the arcs position to track the planes. But outside of the arc the AA is either almost insignificant or 0 damage so that if a CV player does out play or sneak up on the target some how then they get the chance to get full reward for out playing them.

All this will depend on balancing the speed the arc moves. I feel the best idea would be for it to have a delay from the moment the new marker is set to the time the arc starts moving to the new position. So the arc moves quickly to the new position so the aircraft can't out fly it but it takes time to start moving so the aircraft can be flown out of it. Also if a player sets a new marker position but the squadron reverses direction and heads the opposite way before the arc gets to the new position then the surface player can set a new marker but the arc will go to the first new marker position before moving to the second new marker position. This gives the CV the ability to outplay the surface ship by juking them. It also gives the surface ship the chance to out play the CV by guessing correctly the direction the CV squadrons will fly in.

Skills like DFAA could be used to double the AA damage or widen the arc to maybe 50 degrees instead of 30 or probably the best way could be it both widens and increase the AA (but not double that would be to much) slightly for a period of time.

Of course this system will need some refinement but this system would fix the problem of players on both sides feeling like they are either playing against RNG only or are setting their AA and watching and praying it does something

this is the only way to balance the CV to surface ship interaction to both sides satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,179 posts
78 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

There's nothing wrong with keeping the game simple.  Nothing at all.  If anything, they could make the AA sector interface simpler to improve it, by just using either a single key to cycle through the possible settings, or 3-4 keys to handle AA sectors.

3 Keys:

  • Left arrow: reinforce port AA
  • Up arrow: balance AA
  • Right arrow: reinforce starboard AA

And a possible 4th key:

  • Down arrow: turn on/off AA and secondaries.

 

And there you have it.  Use the 4 arrow keys to handle AA and it's quite simple, without having to use a mouse.

 

Please take note of this idea, @Gneisenau013

 

This is actually pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
633
Members
1,067 posts
1,586 battles
38 minutes ago, X__QC__X said:

if I was one I would not have just made the following suggestion in another thread.

 

this is the only way to balance the CV to surface ship interaction to both sides satisfaction.

Not really. You can't balance planes against ships. Either AA is so strong planes can't get through,  or planes are able to dictate the engagement with superior mobility.  There is no middle ground.

 

You system just adds more layers for surface ships and has minimum impact on pilots who maneuver.  Captains want to fight ships, not planes. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,556 posts
10,704 battles
3 hours ago, hipcanuck said:

Interesting that WG tied map size to time compression.....arent some maps smaller? How would that work?

t1-4 maps are smaller and the ships move slower as well. When you get to t4 however the chance to get bumped to t5 and higher games become a thing and well that scaling does not help the t4 ships. About t6 is where all ships are scaled correctly at 4.5x where cv planes are scaled to 5.0x. Before you say anything, I did the match using the GZ as a reference point under boost. The difference was 15 vs 16 seconds to travel 10km under boost. 1 second per 10km is kinda insignificant for this. if the scaling for cv's was 4.0 then it would be a bit more noticeable but still only about 2 seconds at that point.It would also mean an increase in constant fire damage due to time in zone and longer times in flak clouds aura.

There are no simple solutions to this problem. It would take a complete overhaul of the aa system, which would be more encompassing then the cv rework was and has zero profit gain for WG. Best you can do is just stop spending money and posting why. Even still if wg was to make a change because of all that the likelihood they would be able to return to the levels of profit they once had will probably never happened because they literally sacrificed the many for the few.

Maybe when Subs come out as dd's will still be a minority in games due to cv's we will see a change in the power dynamic. Till then we suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
444 posts
3,695 battles
4 hours ago, ruar said:

Not really. You can't balance planes against ships. Either AA is so strong planes can't get through,  or planes are able to dictate the engagement with superior mobility.  There is no middle ground.

 

You system just adds more layers for surface ships and has minimum impact on pilots who maneuver.  Captains want to fight ships, not planes. 

Nonsense, they can be balanced and the system I have proposed will do it. Plus it works with what we currently have all you have to do is push a button to set the marker where you want it. That is even less than it takes to switch to, line up and launch torpedoes or set the AA sector you want to reinforce. You don't have to be in either zoomed scope mode or 3rd person mode because it works with both and all you have to do is point the camera in the direction you want the AA arc and set your marker. So simple even while you are fighting another target if you spot planes you move the camera to look at them and hit the set marker button. It doesn't interfere with what you are doing and you should already be aware of where aircraft are and if they are approaching you.

The system will have plenty of impact on a CV player that maneuvers their squadrons.... you need to go back and try to understand what I have said and proposed instead of trying to guess about it.

This is the only way AA can be done so that both sides don't feel like they are relying 100% on RNG.

Leave your "We won't accept Carriers because we don't want to have to think about what we are doing" at home so we can have a full game experience not the boring camp fest we had before.

Fact is CVs aren't going anywhere and I would rather have a more skill based system instead of the brain dead, set and forget, boring RNG controlled mess that we currently have that results in surface ships not earning their plane damage and kills while CVs are only playing against RNG and not a surface player. I also know that a lot of CCs and other players would prefer a system like this than what we currently have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Beta Testers
131 posts
5,230 battles

Remove Carriers, they don't fit the game at all. Years of WG trying to balance them, and this "CV rework" is what we get? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
633
Members
1,067 posts
1,586 battles
3 hours ago, X__QC__X said:

Nonsense, they can be balanced and the system I have proposed will do it. Plus it works with what we currently have all you have to do is push a button to set the marker where you want it. That is even less than it takes to switch to, line up and launch torpedoes or set the AA sector you want to reinforce. You don't have to be in either zoomed scope mode or 3rd person mode because it works with both and all you have to do is point the camera in the direction you want the AA arc and set your marker. So simple even while you are fighting another target if you spot planes you move the camera to look at them and hit the set marker button. It doesn't interfere with what you are doing and you should already be aware of where aircraft are and if they are approaching you.

The system will have plenty of impact on a CV player that maneuvers their squadrons.... you need to go back and try to understand what I have said and proposed instead of trying to guess about it.

This is the only way AA can be done so that both sides don't feel like they are relying 100% on RNG.

Leave your "We won't accept Carriers because we don't want to have to think about what we are doing" at home so we can have a full game experience not the boring camp fest we had before.

Fact is CVs aren't going anywhere and I would rather have a more skill based system instead of the brain dead, set and forget, boring RNG controlled mess that we currently have that results in surface ships not earning their plane damage and kills while CVs are only playing against RNG and not a surface player. I also know that a lot of CCs and other players would prefer a system like this than what we currently have.

You propose a small arc where AA is effective and the mid point of that arc is positioned by the player.

 

What you aren't accounting for is how easy it is for planes to fly around and approach from different angles.

Your system will work great against a pilot who doesn't change course much.  A pilot who alters course consistently will force the player to constantly change the position of the AA arc. This takes the captain out of the ship fight as they try to maneuver their ship for the plane attacks as well as move the arc pointer around trying to chase the planes.

 

Fights already require a lot of attention from captains and adding another layer of actions doesn't help. Especially when it's just to play the anti-air mini game instead of ship on ship combat.

 

I appreciate the fact you think the answer lies in having more player involvement in AA but that is not the problem.

 

The problem is the fact planes have innate advantages in their mobility, ability to ignore terrain, and ability to dictate engagements. Planes take all of the initiative away from ships and force everyone else to react to the planes actions. No other unit in the game is so strong or has as much influence.  

Changing AA doesn't alter the above issue. All AA does is provide a yes/no check on whether or not planes can conduct an attack. If yes, then surface ships are at the mercy of pilots and become targets waiting to happen.  If no, the pilots complain they can't do anything and demand AA gets nerfed. It doesn't matter if AA is manual or AI, it doesn't actually change the inherent imbalance between planes and ships.

Edited by ruar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,024
[CAFE]
Members
1,726 posts
12,446 battles
13 hours ago, hipcanuck said:

Its pretty simple really, not overly difficult to implement but perhaps hard for WG to wrap their heads around as this is outside the box thinking. Im sure the 'burn the witch' group of players cant wrap their heads around any solution that involves the witch surviving lol.

Bigger maps, more ships, same battle time, same number of CV's.....preferably 1, max 2 (although 1 is likely best) per team. Maps could be 25% larger, have 4 more ships per team and allow divisions of 4 players instead of 3. Camping may (MAY!) become less of an issue because players will be forced to move unlike now where a Yamato's gun range covers most of a map from where it spawns. This could also force CV's to move more (and stop the newbies from parking in a corner!) to cut down on flight times and for self preservation in what may become a more fluid battle environment.

Its unlikely that CV damage output would change much, more ships doesnt necessarily mean more attacks but what it does accomplish is spread out those attacks over more ships. 

No, bigger maps just give people a larger area to run and hide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[PVE]
Beta Testers
322 posts
4,071 battles

How about complex aircraft damage modeling.  Fuel consumption  and Fuel leaks which can restrict operation range, damage to aircraft control surface and systems affecting the handling of aircraft, complex engine damage and modeling... also allowing altitude changes.... (currently feels like a rail scroll shooter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
444 posts
3,695 battles
1 hour ago, ruar said:

You propose a small arc where AA is effective and the mid point of that arc is positioned by the player.

 

What you aren't accounting for is how easy it is for planes to fly around and approach from different angles.

Your system will work great against a pilot who doesn't change course much.  A pilot who alters course consistently will force the player to constantly change the position of the AA arc. This takes the captain out of the ship fight as they try to maneuver their ship for the plane attacks as well as move the arc pointer around trying to chase the planes.

 

Fights already require a lot of attention from captains and adding another layer of actions doesn't help. Especially when it's just to play the anti-air mini game instead of ship on ship combat.

 

I appreciate the fact you think the answer lies in having more player involvement in AA but that is not the problem.

 

The problem is the fact planes have innate advantages in their mobility, ability to ignore terrain, and ability to dictate engagements. Planes take all of the initiative away from ships and force everyone else to react to the planes actions. No other unit in the game is so strong or has as much influence.  

Changing AA doesn't alter the above issue. All AA does is provide a yes/no check on whether or not planes can conduct an attack. If yes, then surface ships are at the mercy of pilots and become targets waiting to happen.  If no, the pilots complain they can't do anything and demand AA gets nerfed. It doesn't matter if AA is manual or AI, it doesn't actually change the inherent imbalance between planes and ships.

If you are not already checking for aircraft approaching you then you don't deserve to have the the ability to defend yourself or anyone else from them. Aircraft are spotted far to easily for them to simply surprise you so if you do get surprised then that player deserves to hit you hard. Do you honestly believe that it is any different to a destroyer sneaking up to you unspotted and using the island beside you to attack you?.... All ships have the ability to surprise and control an engagement and with my system a cruiser or destroyer with strong AA can have its AA switched off reducing its detection range while setting their AA arc before switching it on and surprising the Squadron with a sudden strong burst of potentially lethal AA.

It isn't a mini game it is the entire interaction between CVs and other classes and needs to carry the same level of interaction of skill Vs skill. With this system all you have to do as a surface ship is check to see where the planes are between shots and set the marker for the arc. If you can't do this you should not be playing this game and as I said before this would be plenty effective on maneuvering squads because the arc moves faster than they can while being wide enough for them to stay in it for a long time unless they out play the surface ship.

From your comments I can see you really have only a basic understanding of this game. I would suggest trying to learn more about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
633
Members
1,067 posts
1,586 battles
1 minute ago, X__QC__X said:

If you are not already checking for aircraft approaching you then you don't deserve to have the the ability to defend yourself or anyone else from them. Aircraft are spotted far to easily for them to simply surprise you so if you do get surprised then that player deserves to hit you hard. Do you honestly believe that it is any different to a destroyer sneaking up to you unspotted and using the island beside you to attack you?.... All ships have the ability to surprise and control an engagement and with my system a cruiser or destroyer with strong AA can have its AA switched off reducing its detection range while setting their AA arc before switching it on and surprising the Squadron with a sudden strong burst of potentially lethal AA.

It isn't a mini game it is the entire interaction between CVs and other classes and needs to carry the same level of interaction of skill Vs skill. With this system all you have to do as a surface ship is check to see where the planes are between shots and set the marker for the arc. If you can't do this you should not be playing this game and as I said before this would be plenty effective on maneuvering squads because the arc moves faster than they can while being wide enough for them to stay in it for a long time unless they out play the surface ship.

From your comments I can see you really have only a basic understanding of this game. I would suggest trying to learn more about the game.

From your comments it's obvious you don't understand the history of plane vs. ship interaction and just how easy it is for a pilot to adjust targets and line up attacks from different angles.  Watching those planes is easy, reacting to them not so much.  Demanding ship captains huddle up for an AA umbrella is not balanced nor is it fun.  

And yes, fighting planes is just a mini-game within ship to ship combat.  You don't recognize the problem that planes have the ability to dictate the engagements and force ships to be completely reactive.  That's not interaction, it's dominance.  WoWS is about fighting other ships and oh yeah, here's this other thing where a few people fly around and do attacks so make sure you play the AA mini-game with them while trying to actually fight the battle with everyone else.

 

  • Boring 1

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.

×