Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
DuckyShot

Make shooting planes down matter.

79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,130
Members
6,860 posts
15,357 battles

So currently, CVs aren't risking piles to drop repeatedly on ships while losing aircraft. What if losing planes cost your team points or gained the enemy team points? Then at the end of a close game, the cv might have to be judicious with his plane use and not throw them away with reckless abandon. 

Obviously, the points can't be huge, perhaps 1 point per plane. The difficulty would be disparity between plane strength and plane regen for each carrier and might have to be adjusted for each cv. Saipan plane loss vs kaga would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. 

And as an adjustment, then perhaps the points for a cv kill could go way down. Put the points on the planes and make killing planes matter in the long run. 

  • Cool 15
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
638
[LLMF]
Alpha Tester
2,425 posts
6 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

So currently, CVs aren't risking piles to drop repeatedly on ships while losing aircraft. What if losing planes cost your team points or gained the enemy team points? Then at the end of a close game, the cv might have to be judicious with his plane use and not throw them away with reckless abandon. 

Obviously, the points can't be huge, perhaps 1 point per plane. The difficulty would be disparity between plane strength and plane regen for each carrier and might have to be adjusted for each cv. Saipan plane loss vs kaga would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. 

And as an adjustment, then perhaps the points for a cv kill could go way down. Put the points on the planes and make killing planes matter in the long run. 

Let's take it a step farther - let's make each torpedo miss by any ship cost the team points.

PS How do I get the "not serious" font to work?  Comic Sans good enough?

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,502
[-K-]
Members
8,366 posts
14,179 battles

I like your train of thought here, @Ducky_shot, but I feel it's tough to justify with the RNG luck that is AA-mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,396
[WOLFG]
Members
9,634 posts
8,629 battles

Could you see a CV player throwing away a game while trying to kill a Massachusetts or something and losing planes without killing the ship?

I'm not certain planes=game points would add much other than salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
299
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
1,076 posts
3,889 battles

Shooting planes down would only matter if there were a limited number of planes per carrier, like there used to be and it really should be that way now.  Otherwise it's like taking on a mile-wide locust swarm with a fly swatter.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,130
Members
6,860 posts
15,357 battles
11 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

I like your train of thought here, @Ducky_shot, but I feel it's tough to justify with the RNG luck that is AA-mechanics.

I'm not totally with the idea either, just throwing stuff at the wall. Killing planes just seems so useless atm

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,789
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,345 posts
19,596 battles

0.8.4 PTS changes (specifically the boost change) may flip this pretty hard in the opposite direction. It's going to be hard for most players to NOT lose a bunch of planes on every strike due to increased time in AA.

FWIW, I don't think there is a "sweet spot" under the current AA system, so they can go back and forth on the power curve all they want, it'll just change who's pissed off on any given day. They need an additional knob to work with, which I hope is coming sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,130
Members
6,860 posts
15,357 battles
2 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

They need an additional knob to work with, which I hope is coming sooner rather than later.

Meaning before you and all the people you play with quit the game? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,679 battles
32 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

So currently, CVs aren't risking piles to drop repeatedly on ships while losing aircraft. What if losing planes cost your team points or gained the enemy team points? Then at the end of a close game, the cv might have to be judicious with his plane use and not throw them away with reckless abandon. 

Obviously, the points can't be huge, perhaps 1 point per plane. The difficulty would be disparity between plane strength and plane regen for each carrier and might have to be adjusted for each cv. Saipan plane loss vs kaga would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. 

And as an adjustment, then perhaps the points for a cv kill could go way down. Put the points on the planes and make killing planes matter in the long run. 

In this theme, maybe combat effectiveness is compromised. example, first wave may be your best pilots, if you save most of your planes, they stay strong, lose them and your next wave area your second string or third... Going full Betty Crocker and continually baking new planes as good as the first batch is silly.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,773
[KWF]
Members
4,388 posts
6,405 battles

Can't help but wonder whether making CVs more vulnerable to air attacks may be part of a solution. That would give the danger of sniping provided you didn't pay attention and would encourage sticking close to the team.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
118
[ENDO]
Members
282 posts

What would be nice would be a counter on the top screen notifying how many planes the Red CV has left. It would at least give you the scope and scale of your effort in shooting those planes down.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,789
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,345 posts
19,596 battles
22 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

Meaning before you and all the people you play with quit the game? 

That's way more sensationalist than anything I'd ever say or mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[COOLI]
Members
24 posts
5,780 battles

What if the time to re-launch planes depended on how damaged they are coming back to the CV? So if you bring a plane back that's at 50% health, maybe it gets a reload time of 50% of what it would be if it were shot down? That way there is some reward to hitting planes with AA?

Just a thought.

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[WOLFC]
Members
1,887 posts
9,970 battles
50 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

So currently, CVs aren't risking piles to drop repeatedly on ships while losing aircraft.

 

 

This is a variation on the "planes = torps/shells" discussion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[WOLFC]
Members
1,887 posts
9,970 battles
7 minutes ago, mrkimba said:

What would be nice would be a counter on the top screen notifying how many planes the Red CV has left. It would at least give you the scope and scale of your effort in shooting those planes down.

 

 

I think the general idea was that like any other consumable or ordnance, we have to figure out how things are going on our opponent.   - Kinda like watching a BB fire and then knowing the length of time it takes for them to fire again & going in on them.  I can imagine how a BB main would feel if a counter was seen by everybody about how long it took for reload. Personally, what I would like to see is the damage amount put into our stats page at the end of a battle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,576
[1984]
Members
4,136 posts
19,969 battles
34 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

0.8.4 PTS changes (specifically the boost change) may flip this pretty hard in the opposite direction. It's going to be hard for most players to NOT lose a bunch of planes on every strike due to increased time in AA.

FWIW, I don't think there is a "sweet spot" under the current AA system, so they can go back and forth on the power curve all they want, it'll just change who's pissed off on any given day. They need an additional knob to work with, which I hope is coming sooner rather than later.

Pretty sure they’re working all their knobs already.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[K-ARM]
Members
17 posts
1,929 battles

How about every plane shot down is like 10 HP removed from the carrier?  That would be some type of limiter... 

Or another thought... How about each re-spawn takes slightly longer...   but returned aircraft count right away...

I haven't thought through these, just kinda brain (or brain-less) storming..

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,337
[SIM]
Members
4,943 posts
8,026 battles

As soon as we begin penalizing a team for every missed salvo and every torpedo that accomplishes nothing, we can begin talking about penalizing CVs for playing the game. Until then, oh look, more useless anti-CV garbage. :Smile_smile:

Edited by SkaerKrow
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[K-ARM]
Members
17 posts
1,929 battles
8 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

As soon as we begin oenalizing a team for every missed salvo and every torpedo that accomplishes nothing, we can begin talking about penalizing CVs for playing the game. Until then, oh look, more useless anti-CV garbage. :Smile_smile:

The issue isnt penalizing for missed salvos, torpedos or bomb runs... I think the premise is that when I shoot a salvo at an enemy ship, I have to wait 3-12 seconds to gauge it's effectiveness, exposing my ship to return fire (I dont play hiddy DDs), during which my cycle time on my cannons (15-30 seconds) to shoot again.  Currently the engaged aircraft can make multiple attack runs in a matter of seconds (say 10 or so), with another squadron on it's way.  And there is no risk to the CV.  They essentially dont have any skin in the game as it were.

  I dont hate CVs... I like the challenge they bring.  The only thing I ask for is give me credit for the damage I inflict on planes, like the damage I inflice on ships.  Nothing more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,849
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,445 posts
14,165 battles
1 hour ago, Bonfor said:

Shooting planes down would only matter if there were a limited number of planes per carrier, like there used to be and it really should be that way now.  Otherwise it's like taking on a mile-wide locust swarm with a fly swatter.

Unlimited planes are not unlimited. The regen rate does a pretty good job of gating a CV's use of its assets so the hanger capacity does not need to be directly counted.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[ONE38]
Members
3,781 posts
12,832 battles

NM //"not serious" font

Edited by MrKilmister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[WOLFC]
Members
1,887 posts
9,970 battles
35 minutes ago, GBOBVA said:

The issue isnt penalizing for missed salvos, torpedos or bomb runs... I think the premise is that when I shoot a salvo at an enemy ship, I have to wait 3-12 seconds to gauge it's effectiveness, exposing my ship to return fire (I dont play hiddy DDs),

3

Returning fire is not necessary to countering a CV. 

 

WoW is designed to reward winning.  Damage is only a part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[ONE38]
Members
3,781 posts
12,832 battles
2 hours ago, Bonfor said:

Shooting planes down would only matter if there were a limited number of planes per carrier, like there used to be and it really should be that way now.  Otherwise it's like taking on a mile-wide locust swarm with a fly swatter.

"What if losing planes cost your team points or gained the enemy team points?"

More planes to shoot down could simply be more potential team points to the tally on the scoreboard up to 1000.

Edited by MrKilmister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
299
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
1,076 posts
3,889 battles
8 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Unlimited planes are not unlimited. The regen rate does a pretty good job of gating a CV's use of its assets so the hanger capacity does not need to be directly counted.

True, there is that...so one way to affect balance is to tinker with the regen rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[STW-M]
Beta Testers
536 posts
8,906 battles
2 hours ago, Bonfor said:

Shooting planes down would only matter if there were a limited number of planes per carrier, like there used to be and it really should be that way now.  Otherwise it's like taking on a mile-wide locust swarm with a fly swatter.

just to let you know carriers had more planes in the old rts then they do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×