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

Need a new game mode.

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

20
[-BRS-]
Members
17 posts
11,663 battles

Full disclosure, I hate CVs.  With that being said, the CV rework and constant CV, AA fixes point out a deeper problem in the game:  That is that CVs don't "interact" with each other in the game.  I'm having a hard time envisioning a fix that would remedy this.  What I suggest is a CV game mode.  Take them out of randoms and give them their own mode where they and AA cruises can sink each other and shoot down planes with automated AA to their heart's content. 

What really burns me up about the CV is that he is able to sit at the back of the map and attack with impunity.  His planes get shot down, no problem, there is an infinite supply aboard WG CVs. Nobody likes a Yammy or Conq that plays the A line, but that's where the CV lives. Seriously, figure out a way where they have to interact with each other.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,162 posts
6,300 battles

They could fix all that if the planes deployed can only be to a certain distance maximum from the CV.  And also airtime is limited or constrained. When time is used up then the planes must return unless a consummable is used. Extra time consummable. I guess while were at it a extra distance consummable can be an option.  But you get the idea...make the CV limited in its attack radius. If it wants to attack other areas..the CV has to move within attack radius to that area. My idea would make CV players more in tune with its other ship mates in my opinion.  Also CV's should have SMOKE either on the ship or the planes...maybe both for defence.  They had them in real life so why not here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,334
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,623 posts
22 minutes ago, Parrish_ said:

Full disclosure, I hate CVs.  With that being said, the CV rework and constant CV, AA fixes point out a deeper problem in the game:  That is that CVs don't "interact" with each other in the game.  I'm having a hard time envisioning a fix that would remedy this.  What I suggest is a CV game mode.  Take them out of randoms and give them their own mode where they and AA cruises can sink each other and shoot down planes with automated AA to their heart's content. 

What really burns me up about the CV is that he is able to sit at the back of the map and attack with impunity.  His planes get shot down, no problem, there is an infinite supply aboard WG CVs. Nobody likes a Yammy or Conq that plays the A line, but that's where the CV lives. Seriously, figure out a way where they have to interact with each other.

This has been suggested about 100 times.  It won't be done for the same reasons we don't have any other ship specific only game mode.  WG is not going to split their player base and create more queues, and for CVs to work correctly in a match, they need a combination and number of other non CV ships in that match.

There is also absolutely NOT an infinite plane supply either.  LWM did a big post about this explaing it all quite some time ago but, for example:

The Midway has 12 dive bombers to a squad, a single plane takes 69 seconds to replace.  So a full squad can be replaced in 13.8 minutes, of a possible 20 minute match, to replace one squad of lost planes, assuming the match lasts that long.

The Saipan has 6 torpedo planes per squad, the CV takes 143 seconds to rebuild one plane.  So the replacement of one lost squad takes 14.3 minutes, or almost 75% of the maximum possible match time.  If a match doesn't go it's full possible length, it is very likely that that single lost squad, will never be replaced.

CVs are limited in the planes that they have available, by replacement time and length of the match.  We can and absolutely do, run out of planes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,953
[SALVO]
Members
22,903 posts
23,445 battles
19 minutes ago, Parrish_ said:

Full disclosure, I hate CVs.  With that being said, the CV rework and constant CV, AA fixes point out a deeper problem in the game:  That is that CVs don't "interact" with each other in the game.  I'm having a hard time envisioning a fix that would remedy this.  What I suggest is a CV game mode.  Take them out of randoms and give them their own mode where they and AA cruises can sink each other and shoot down planes with automated AA to their heart's content. 

What really burns me up about the CV is that he is able to sit at the back of the map and attack with impunity.  His planes get shot down, no problem, there is an infinite supply aboard WG CVs. Nobody likes a Yammy or Conq that plays the A line, but that's where the CV lives. Seriously, figure out a way where they have to interact with each other.

What burns me up is people complaining about CVs doing what CVs are SUPPOSED TO DO, i.e. attack their enemies from beyond the range of their guns!!!  In reality, CVs would have never existed if not for this ability!  So, IMO, it's a bad joke to complain about CVs acting like CVs are supposed to.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,953
[SALVO]
Members
22,903 posts
23,445 battles
11 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

They could fix all that if the planes deployed can only be to a certain distance maximum from the CV.  And also airtime is limited or constrained. When time is used up then the planes must return unless a consummable is used. Extra time consummable. I guess while were at it a extra distance consummable can be an option.  But you get the idea...make the CV limited in its attack radius. If it wants to attack other areas..the CV has to move within attack radius to that area. My idea would make CV players more in tune with its other ship mates in my opinion.  Also CV's should have SMOKE either on the ship or the planes...maybe both for defence.  They had them in real life so why not here.  

When carriers in real life could strike targets hundreds of miles away from the carrier, it's beyond stupid to think that they shouldn't be able to cover the entire map in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,334
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,623 posts
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

When carriers in real life could strike targets hundreds of miles away from the carrier, it's beyond stupid to think that they shouldn't be able to cover the entire map in this game.

Real life abilities and circumstances have nothing to do with this video game.

As long as things are truely balanced, not always in favor of one ship type or another, what happened or happens in real life, doesn't really matter.

If we were basing things in reality and this were a simulator, the maps would have to be massive, matches would take forever, BBs would miss WAY more than they do now, DDs could not reload torps, blah blah, on and on.

Lots of changes to this game that are not realistic have been made in the name of balance, and I agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,162 posts
6,300 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

When carriers in real life could strike targets hundreds of miles away from the carrier, it's beyond stupid to think that they shouldn't be able to cover the entire map in this game.

It is a game..it is rooted in selective reality to make the game fun and engaging.  Also its about a sense of fairness so that one class does not have a extreme advantage over the other. Any elements rooted in reality can be chosen as well as can be rejected. As I said..its just a game in consideration which should be  to met so that the greatest amount of players enjoy the play style...and that is always a ongoing change as the game progresses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,334
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,623 posts
Just now, dionkraft said:

It is a game..it is rooted in selective reality to make the game fun and engaging.  Also its about a sense of fairness so that one class does not have a extreme advantage over the other. Any elements rooted in reality can be chosen as well as can be rejected. As I said..its just a game in consideration which should be  to met so that the greatest amount of players enjoy the play style...and that is always a ongoing change as the game progresses. 

Well said.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[187]
Members
1,625 posts
9,477 battles
30 minutes ago, Parrish_ said:

That is that CVs don't "interact" with each other in the game.  I'm having a hard time envisioning a fix that would remedy this.

Submarines will get them moving ...as far as CV's interacting with other...they can if they had people who understood how to. They can be hit, they can be killed....they bleed.

and don't talk crap about Yamato...I love her....--->

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,169
[5D]
Members
3,010 posts
19,051 battles

I always say if you want to stop the CV then better kill his team quick so you can seal club the CV. However, this won't really bring much closure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,777 posts
12,773 battles
20 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

They could fix all that if the planes deployed can only be to a certain distance maximum from the CV.  And also airtime is limited or constrained. When time is used up then the planes must return unless a consummable is used. Extra time consummable. I guess while were at it a extra distance consummable can be an option.  But you get the idea...make the CV limited in its attack radius. If it wants to attack other areas..the CV has to move within attack radius to that area. My idea would make CV players more in tune with its other ship mates in my opinion.  Also CV's should have SMOKE either on the ship or the planes...maybe both for defence.  They had them in real life so why not here.  

There was a fuel factor for planes before I got into alpha. It was removed because the planes are not flying hundreds of miles to get to the battle and only flying tens of miles. You want the CV to come within your gun range but the rework CV's are almost defenseless against surface attack. Now give the CV some bot escorts that only act when an enemy is within a set range you might be on to something but that also raises concerns about the bots TK'ing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[-BRS-]
Members
17 posts
11,663 battles
21 minutes ago, Crucis said:

What burns me up is people complaining about CVs doing what CVs are SUPPOSED TO DO, i.e. attack their enemies from beyond the range of their guns!!!  In reality, CVs would have never existed if not for this ability!  So, IMO, it's a bad joke to complain about CVs acting like CVs are supposed to.

 

In reality, if you want to go there, the real enemy of the CV was the CV.  Look it up.  75% of CVs sunk in WW2 were sunk by other CVs, most of the rest by subs and one or two by surface combatants.  Surface ships were secondary targets for CVs.  No so in the game.  I know, don't tell me, its a game.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,162 posts
6,300 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

There was a fuel factor for planes before I got into alpha. It was removed because the planes are not flying hundreds of miles to get to the battle and only flying tens of miles. You want the CV to come within your gun range but the rework CV's are almost defenseless against surface attack. Now give the CV some bot escorts that only act when an enemy is within a set range you might be on to something but that also raises concerns about the bots TK'ing.

NOW your cooking..thats a good idea that I think many would welcome.   But the Tking thing..that raises sme issues I suppose!   I know we have these CV  for and against discussions but I wonder if there is any real middle ground...in which we can come to a compromise on..maybe I'm just dreaming!   I guess it comes down to what WOW is thinking in terms of this never ending discussion.  Maybe it will never come to rest I'm thinking.  I guess the show must go on as they say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,274
[WOLFG]
Members
24,716 posts
6,108 battles
45 minutes ago, Crucis said:

When carriers in real life could strike targets hundreds of miles away from the carrier, it's beyond stupid to think that they shouldn't be able to cover the entire map in this game.

I wouldn't go as far as stupid, many people liked the gameplay of NavyField, and fuel was often a concern for CV players.

From your starting location, you could hit a CV at its starting location, IF you predicted correctly where the target would be when you got there. You had about 15 seconds to find your target, or you weren't making it back. Operating closer to home gave you more latitude in searching for targets.

We can't simulate striking range concerns with the map size we have, but we can abstract it.

I'd have no problem with squadrons being on a fuel timer. When the timer runs out, your planes splash. To help less attentive players, there could be a warning when you hit BINGO, and possibly even an option to have the planes auto-recall at that point. Even a shrinking circle that shows you how far you can go before reaching that state.

IMO, something like that would add more depth to CV play, and incentivize CV players to consider more than personal safety when positioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,777 posts
12,773 battles
28 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

NOW your cooking..thats a good idea that I think many would welcome.   But the Tking thing..that raises sme issues I suppose!   I know we have these CV  for and against discussions but I wonder if there is any real middle ground...in which we can come to a compromise on..maybe I'm just dreaming!   I guess it comes down to what WOW is thinking in terms of this never ending discussion.  Maybe it will never come to rest I'm thinking.  I guess the show must go on as they say...

If you think the CV rework discussion has been heated subs will make this look like a knitting circle. The CV problem is really an expectation problem. Too many people are thinking that if any strikes get through that AA is a failure when they need to look at how many passes that squadron made before the damage became too heavy. Too many are also looking at the unicums and equating every CV player to be one when they are not but another one two punch to CV's like 8.4 and 8.5 that will be all that is left playing them because no one else will be able to do anything but spot BB's.

 

2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I wouldn't go as far as stupid, many people liked the gameplay of NavyField, and fuel was often a concern for CV players.

From your starting location, you could hit a CV at its starting location, IF you predicted correctly where the target would be when you got there. You had about 15 seconds to find your target, or you weren't making it back. Operating closer to home gave you more latitude in searching for targets.

We can't simulate striking range concerns with the map size we have, but we can abstract it.

I'd have no problem with squadrons being on a fuel timer. When the timer runs out, your planes splash. To help less attentive players, there could be a warning when you hit BINGO, and possibly even an option to have the planes auto-recall at that point. Even a shrinking circle that shows you how far you can go before reaching that state.

IMO, something like that would add more depth to CV play, and incentivize CV players to consider more than personal safety when positioning.

I never experienced the fuel limited planes in alpha but I think they planes automatically went home although I may be wrong.

On CV positioning that is driven by their being essentially helpless against surface ships because of the lack of an alpha strike. Address that and you will see CV's being more forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,162 posts
6,300 battles
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

If you think the CV rework discussion has been heated subs will make this look like a knitting circle. The CV problem is really an expectation problem. Too many people are thinking that if any strikes get through that AA is a failure when they need to look at how many passes that squadron made before the damage became too heavy. Too many are also looking at the unicums and equating every CV player to be one when they are not but another one two punch to CV's like 8.4 and 8.5 that will be all that is left playing them because no one else will be able to do anything but spot BB's.

 

I never experienced the fuel limited planes in alpha but I think they planes automatically went home although I may be wrong.

On CV positioning that is driven by their being essentially helpless against surface ships because of the lack of an alpha strike. Address that and you will see CV's being more forward.

yeah..I like that label:    EXPECTATION Problem....    Good insight on the CV drama.   I am wondering if WOW were to implement a full manual AA gun system in which the player aimed and shot just like torps and artillery would the player feel more satisfied in the game play...even if they they got sunk no matter what...I'm thinking the personal defence may give more "Satisfaction" in the process.....I guess it could be an option to choose - Auto or manual...but manual should be as accurate as your skill to place your shoots accordingly..what do you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,777 posts
12,773 battles
3 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

yeah..I like that label:    EXPECTATION Problem....    Good insight on the CV drama.   I am wondering if WOW were to implement a full manual AA gun system in which the player aimed and shot just like torps and artillery would the player feel more satisfied in the game play...even if they they got sunk no matter what...I'm thinking the personal defence may give more "Satisfaction" in the process.....I guess it could be an option to choose - Auto or manual...but manual should be as accurate as your skill to place your shoots accordingly..what do you think? 

I think more would be satisfied but only if they stop the attack dead. If anything gets through that expectation problem comes right back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,334
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,623 posts
11 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

yeah..I like that label:    EXPECTATION Problem....    Good insight on the CV drama.   I am wondering if WOW were to implement a full manual AA gun system in which the player aimed and shot just like torps and artillery would the player feel more satisfied in the game play...even if they they got sunk no matter what...I'm thinking the personal defence may give more "Satisfaction" in the process.....I guess it could be an option to choose - Auto or manual...but manual should be as accurate as your skill to place your shoots accordingly..what do you think? 

I don't want to be in a cruiser with a DD circling me while I am trying to daka daka it to the bottom of the sea, dodge it's torps and at the same time trying to also somehow aim AA guns to shoot down in coming planes in the sky on the other side of my ship.

Trying to do it in a DD knife fight with another DD, would be even worse. 

I dunno about you but I would have trouble trying aim at two things with two difference gun types while driving my ship all at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,274
[WOLFG]
Members
24,716 posts
6,108 battles
15 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

On CV positioning that is driven by their being essentially helpless against surface ships because of the lack of an alpha strike. Address that and you will see CV's being more forward.

I think it depends on the actual positioning.

It's certainly prudent to remain a certain distance from the action, but unless the game is basically already lost, there's no need to try and stretch the rear boundary of the map.

Where I usually operate is within gun range of BBs, but not within spotting range. Pretty much every game, I get spotted by enemy planes, and take some hits, but it's difficult for the enemy planes to hang around and provide spotting for the time needed to sink me. Yet my survival rate is still head and shoulders above any other ship type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
[KRAK]
Members
3,385 posts
19,206 battles
7 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

I don't want to be in a cruiser with a DD circling me while I am trying to daka daka it to the bottom of the sea and at the same time trying to also somehow aim AA guns to shoot down in coming planes in the sky on the other side of my ship.

Trying to do it in a DD knife fight with another DD, would be even worse. 

I dunno about you but I would have trouble trying aim at two things with two difference gun types while driving my ship all at the same time.

Git gud? :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,162 posts
6,300 battles
7 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

I don't want to be in a cruiser with a DD circling me while I am trying to daka daka it to the bottom of the sea, dodge it's torps and at the same time trying to also somehow aim AA guns to shoot down in coming planes in the sky on the other side of my ship.

Trying to do it in a DD knife fight with another DD, would be even worse. 

I dunno about you but I would have trouble trying aim at two things with two difference gun types while driving my ship all at the same time.

Yes your right about what you said.....it would be hard to confront two enemies of different types at the very same time.  I am thinking you can choose to have AA on auto but can "take over" on manual when you choose. then if you see a new threat choose torps or guns and then AA becomes auto again....How about that solution or suggestion?  I think it would not change the game but actually add some more functionality to it instead..and some fun target practice in the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,777 posts
12,773 battles
3 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I think it depends on the actual positioning.

It's certainly prudent to remain a certain distance from the action, but unless the game is basically already lost, there's no need to try and stretch the rear boundary of the map.

Where I usually operate is within gun range of BBs, but not within spotting range. Pretty much every game, I get spotted by enemy planes, and take some hits, but it's difficult for the enemy planes to hang around and provide spotting for the time needed to sink me. Yet my survival rate is still head and shoulders above any other ship type.

This is also very map dependent as the CV's are spotted very early on some maps. What I do is find a safe spot to work from early on and then if the battle progresses in our favor I will start moving up. Something I know happens to me and I feel safe in assuming happens to a lot of players is they become so wrapped up in handling planes they forget about the ship so if the battle is going well they will effectively be moving away from the battle. even though they may not mean to.

Just now, Scrapyard_ said:

They could remove CV from the game and all that would happen is the player base would find something else to complain about. 

Just wait for subs, that will be a forum storm of epic proportions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,334
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,623 posts
8 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

Yes your right about what you said.....it would be hard to confront two enemies of different types at the very same time.  I am thinking you can choose to have AA on auto but can "take over" on manual when you choose. then if you see a new threat choose torps or guns and then AA becomes auto again....How about that solution or suggestion?  I think it would not change the game but actually add some more functionality to it instead..and some fun target practice in the mix.

I think that would be cool. 

If they were going to do that, they could do it with secondaries as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×