Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Tpaktop2_1

NoZoup got me thinking

248 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

613
[TFK]
[TFK]
Alpha Tester
1,530 posts
18,811 battles

He got me thinking on item Number 3. Here's my response to his video

Quote

It's not the problem of the CVs. It's the immunity that the CV's are getting. I am annoyed that CV's can have no fire. Can take off aircraft in bad weather(storms). Can land aircraft in storms, Torpedo bombers can drop with no bounce effect on dropped torpedoes in storms. CV aircraft have immunity during and after their drops. AA fire versus CV aircraft is historically ineffective. A CV will never run out of aircraft. CVs have double their HP pool when compared to other ships in WoWS because of Aircraft. Now I know WoWS is an arcade game, however make it plausible not fantasy. Change the CV HP rate for every damage the CV aircraft take it comes off the CV's health pool. Make CVs have fire. Make take offs while the CV is on fire riskier to the CV health pool. If planes can take off when the CV is on fire, put RNG on the CV as damage happens as a result. Make it a threat assessment risk for the player's action. Make the AA effect similar to what WoWS had when it went live. Make it plausible.

 

I am not an anti-CV person, just annoyed over bad game mechanics. One of the items I was thinking of is taking aircraft damage and putting it on the CV too. The thought is as aircraft taking damage in not getting shot down, that damage is transferred over to the health pool of the CV. As a result the CV's health pool goes down. And when planes get shot down, the CV's health pool gets less and less for each aircraft. I look at this as a check and balance way of doing risk assessment for a CV air attack. It allows the CV player to have unlimited supply of aircraft, but they realize the main base for aircraft launch will have limits in surviving. I think this is good enough idea to discuss these points. What do you think?

  • Cool 15
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
  • Boring 5
  • Meh 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,547
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,357 posts
5,265 battles

So you're telling me...that basically no matter how good I play...when my planes get shot down....I lose health on my ship. 

You basically would make CVs useless. People would run AA ships just to kill the CV without even getting in sight of it. 

  • Cool 14
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,180
Members
1,484 posts
23,643 battles
5 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

You basically would make CVs useless.

:)

6 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

People would run AA ships just to kill the CV without even getting in sight of it. 

Just like CVs killing ships without even getting in sight of it. Hmmm.....

  • Cool 24
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 6
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,143
[SALVO]
Members
3,415 posts
3,294 battles

Still not sold on the shared HP for planes and ship, too much of a "gamey" mechanic. Still prefer a hardcap on planes.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,583
[KWF]
Members
4,186 posts
6,350 battles

Personally I would like two things; first is an AA system with more input by the player, because right now it's the CV player versus AI AA. 

Secondly, a fuel system for the planes would make playing CV more interesting by moving with more, having to pick a flank to reinforce easier etc. 

All that said, the one issue I have with CVs, their very strong late game impact,will never be addressed.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
329
[TBB]
Members
400 posts
3,629 battles
28 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

Now I know WoWS is an arcade game, however make it plausible not fantasy. Change the CV HP rate for every damage the CV aircraft take it comes off the CV's health pool

I'm at a loss for words at how dumb this sentence is. Let's be PLAUSIBLE; Damage the ship HP when a plane is shot down. Oh my goodness we are at new low. 

Edit: How often have you flown the planes since the rework? 

Edited by Merc_R_Us
  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[PISD]
Members
1,114 posts
4,977 battles
10 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Still prefer a hardcap on planes

It's already the case. The ''hangar limit'' vs ''planes regeneration'' is only a psychological issue. Hell, the current system makes planes loss matter quicker than a fixed hangar, the main difference is that with time you will still retain some king of utility thanks to plan regen instead of being useless after some time.

 

 

He do point many issue: damage con is stupid right now and make CV immune to fire, even if they were the most fragile to it in real life. And as he said, typhoon and storm should impact the drop capacity of the squadron, just like CV should have to move at least at half speed to launch planes (that later part would force CV to be more in the open, which would be great to counter them).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[PISD]
Members
1,114 posts
4,977 battles
5 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Personally I would like two things; first is an AA system with more input by the player, because right now it's the CV player versus AI AA. 

Yes it would be great, but you still need some AI AA. One idea could be to add a 4th weapon system, AA, that give you a kind of torpedo arc where activated boost even more the AA damage). But you need to retain the current system since a lot of player struggle to use it despite how easy it is.

8 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Secondly, a fuel system for the planes would make playing CV more interesting by moving with more, having to pick a flank to reinforce easier etc. 

that could be good. not logical, but to force plan to stay in some ''30km of the CV'' would force CV to move forward and remove some of their striking capacity. Still, they should retain more range than any BB.

9 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

All that said, the one issue I have with CVs, their very strong late game impact,will never be addressed.

This is an issue that only exist against good CV players. Many time you will see CV player sending 3-4 planes strikes by the second half, becoming nearly useless outside of spotting. And if the CV will become more all mighty at the end of the game, it is more often case of ''making sure its team have the win'' than ''turning the tide of the battle'' I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
909
[NDA]
Supertester
3,569 posts
7,645 battles

Oh god imagine this in a kaga, or a german carrier, you'd be dead By mid match. This on top of CV sniping being a thing again and the new concealment for DDs (maybe) coming. 

As much as I like people trying to fix things with logic rather than having dumb arguments, thanks for that, I personally think this needs a bit more thought put into it. 

As for the whole storm thing, that's an interesting point. However considering all the things that surface ships can do they shouldn't be able to inside and outside of storms I feel like this would cause a lot of backlash very quickly from CV mains.  

Oh also: this would also make captains that heal incredibly powerful, such as the german commander lutjens another thing to balance.

Edit: You are also overlooking some more things that need to be addressed for a system like this, like the god awful autopilot that gets you killed and a couple of other things.
 

Edited by Sinboto
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,513
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,433 posts
6,255 battles

keep thinking,you will  find the answer soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,990
[WOLFG]
Members
8,869 posts
7,337 battles
20 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

It's already the case. The ''hangar limit'' vs ''planes regeneration'' is only a psychological issue. Hell, the current system makes planes loss matter quicker than a fixed hangar, the main difference is that with time you will still retain some king of utility thanks to plan regen instead of being useless after some time.

 

 

He do point many issue: damage con is stupid right now and make CV immune to fire, even if they were the most fragile to it in real life. And as he said, typhoon and storm should impact the drop capacity of the squadron, just like CV should have to move at least at half speed to launch planes (that later part would force CV to be more in the open, which would be great to counter them).

I can't remember, but has WG futzed with regen rates on any of their CV balancing passes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[8492]
[8492]
Members
467 posts
2,589 battles
46 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

He got me thinking on item Number 3. Here's my response to his video

 

I am not an anti-CV person, just annoyed over bad game mechanics. One of the items I was thinking of is taking aircraft damage and putting it on the CV too. The thought is as aircraft taking damage in not getting shot down, that damage is transferred over to the health pool of the CV. As a result the CV's health pool goes down. And when planes get shot down, the CV's health pool gets less and less for each aircraft. I look at this as a check and balance way of doing risk assessment for a CV air attack. It allows the CV player to have unlimited supply of aircraft, but they realize the main base for aircraft launch will have limits in surviving. I think this is good enough idea to discuss these points. What do you think?

 

 

All of this would make CV the most utter useless class of ship in game. The only way to counteract the changes you suggest is to make CV weapons hit as hard as other ships. So if these changes were to happen, then make there torps hit as hard as cruiser torps or dd torps ect. If that happens, then people will still complain when they got nuked out of a match by a good CV player. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
909
[NDA]
Supertester
3,569 posts
7,645 battles
Just now, DrHolmes52 said:

I can't remember, but has WG futzed with regen rates on any of their CV balancing passes?

Yes and no. Sometimes they will get changed during testing (which can be seen in dev blogs) but they don't like to mess with that after launch too much. Last big changes to CVs was the AP bomb changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,211
[-BUI-]
Members
1,756 posts
5,164 battles

Just another in a long line of ideas that would make CVs totally unplayable.  

If you did this change, you'd have to increase plane speed and health and damage to make up for it, and all CVs would just fly around until they found someone run off alone and then attack them and only them until they died.     Oh that DD with support has 2,000 HP and just needs 1 goods strike to finish it off?  Hope you got radar, cause I'm not going anywhere near it, good luck.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237
[CHBK]
Members
619 posts
2,904 battles
9 minutes ago, Slumlord_Dasboot said:

 

 

All of this would make CV the most utter useless class of ship in game. The only way to counteract the changes you suggest is to make CV weapons hit as hard as other ships. So if these changes were to happen, then make there torps hit as hard as cruiser torps or dd torps ect. If that happens, then people will still complain when they got nuked out of a match by a good CV player. 

The problem is most people suggesting changes to the CV

1.  Never actually play CVs

2. Are suffering from confirmation bias in that they remember every single time a CV was strong against them and magically forget every time a CV was useless.

 

Im totally for allowing CV's to have fires more consistent with other ships, but a shared health pool between the ship and planes? Come on.  The problem with that is the damn planes WILL take damage on every strike there is no way to completely avoid damage.  You would have a situation where carriers just stop fighting halfway through every match and just spot at best.  (Yes I am sure people that loathe CVs would love this).

TBH the only time I get frustrated by a CV is when I am caught alone and it will be a while to rejoin with any other ships and the CV makes it his lifes work to sink me.  Even then, it takes the CV a significant amount of time to do this.

Edited by Taco_De_Moist
  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,143
[SALVO]
Members
3,415 posts
3,294 battles
34 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

It's already the case. The ''hangar limit'' vs ''planes regeneration'' is only a psychological issue. Hell, the current system makes planes loss matter quicker than a fixed hangar, the main difference is that with time you will still retain some king of utility thanks to plan regen instead of being useless after some time.

 

I might be wrong about this because I'm pulling this out of my memory, but I remember a table (maybe by LWM) showing the number of planes in hangar and the potential regeneration of planes and for many CVs the regeneration rate was very substantial. It isn't a psychological issue when the CV regenerates up to 40% of their plane pool, it turns a very practical issue when planes are regenerated at a similar rate in which they are lost.

Even so, for psychological reasons I find it better (more reliable, more fair if you like) that the things you kill remain dead. Knowing each plane you down (or loose) counts means a lot, for both sides. Attrition becomes a real factor by games end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,914
[--K--]
Members
6,714 posts
14,554 battles

Make plane kills lose points for that carriers team. 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,547
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,357 posts
5,265 battles

Attrition actually comes into play late match. If the AA dd is still alive he shreds your planes and you send out fewer strikes.

If this so called "change" were put into play I'd lobby very hard to drastically increase CV damage to ships. If I have to risk ship health due to planes, then I expect to be able to erase you if I get through.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
257 posts
520 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

All that said, the one issue I have with CVs, their very strong late game impact,will never be addressed.

They only have a strong late game impact if they're still alive or protected. You can have 2 carriers late game to the enemy team's one, but if they're the only ships on that side of the map they are vulnerable. Sure, they can still have full hp with full squadrons, but if they're being rushed by a Clemson and an AA build Isokaze, their chances are pretty slim. Even if carriers survive being discovered and attacked, they won't be much help to the rest of their team.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[PISD]
Members
1,114 posts
4,977 battles
33 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I might be wrong about this because I'm pulling this out of my memory, but I remember a table (maybe by LWM) showing the number of planes in hangar and the potential regeneration of planes and for many CVs the regeneration rate was very substantial. It isn't a psychological issue when the CV regenerates up to 40% of their plane pool, it turns a very practical issue when planes are regenerated at a similar rate in which they are lost.

Even so, for psychological reasons I find it better (more reliable, more fair if you like) that the things you kill remain dead. Knowing each plane you down (or loose) counts means a lot, for both sides. Attrition becomes a real factor by games end.

Yes they do regenerate roughly that numbers. But when you add the potential regenerate and their starting plane you got roughly the same number as in the old system, minus the fighter consumables. They drop the fixed hanger to help bad players: by limiting their striking power from the start bad player can still be relevant later in the game. While if you went with a fixed hangar, bad player would burn their squadron in the first 10 minutes and become floating pinata, while good would have kept their squadron And have an even bigger impact than now.

 

basically it’s the same logic of giving 10k per years to someone for 10 years instead of giving him 100k.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[BABS]
Members
239 posts
2 hours ago, theLaalaa said:

:)

Just like CVs killing ships without even getting in sight of it. Hmmm.....

The irony of the coddled class is lost on them

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[KLANC]
Members
5 posts
9,022 battles

I remember when Emergency Takeoff was a captain skill. Let you take off and recover flight groups even if the flight deck was on fire. If only we had manual control of our damage control. Then maybe it wouldnt have to last 60 seconds and carriers would actually have to think. I'd welcome it and I play carriers all the time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[BABS]
Members
239 posts
2 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

He got me thinking on item Number 3. Here's my response to his video

 

I am not an anti-CV person, just annoyed over bad game mechanics. One of the items I was thinking of is taking aircraft damage and putting it on the CV too. The thought is as aircraft taking damage in not getting shot down, that damage is transferred over to the health pool of the CV. As a result the CV's health pool goes down. And when planes get shot down, the CV's health pool gets less and less for each aircraft. I look at this as a check and balance way of doing risk assessment for a CV air attack. It allows the CV player to have unlimited supply of aircraft, but they realize the main base for aircraft launch will have limits in surviving. I think this is good enough idea to discuss these points. What do you think?

Zoup is one of the better/best Community Contributors out there.  He does try to avoid being toxic, but he doesnt shy away from telling the truth about problems that are currently in the game either.   I've actually floated this idea you are presenting before elsewhere in comparison to dialing back the regen mechanic.  I'm very much similar to you, I'm not against having CV's in the game but the reality is that the way they are currently implemented is a one sided affair on their end.

 

CV's do need a change.  There are people who don't like that, dont want anyone to talk about it, and they will attack you for even daring to bring it up. It doesnt change the fact that CV's do need a change.  CV's would not become useless as many are saying, they would just need to learn how to play differently basically like every other class has been forced to do because of their CV.  The problem is that CV players dont want to see their ability to roll in with a 14 point captain and straight up ignore most of the grouped up AA to get off high damage bombing strikes.. Sure, they will lose planes, but it doesnt actually hurt them as they fly torpedo and rocket planes that they use a little more cautiously while their bombers regen.  To be honest, a CV player should have to make a choice between forcing an attack and losing his planes for the rest of the match, or playing smart and striking only when the time is right while focusing on spotting.  

 

The claim you will most likely hear about that will be "But that would make our ships boring!" No, it would just mean your ship is not a I can do everything without ever getting spotted for the entire match playstyle..  Changes need to be made to make Carriers more integrated into a team dynamic.  If they dont want to change the way the Planes regen or keep CV's from being damage dealers, then they should look at removing the spotting ability of all attack aircraft.  This would mean that a surface ship needs other surface ships or SPOTTING aircraft to locate it for the CV to work in conjunction with. 

 

That brings us to the last claim you may hear for that idea. "Thats not realistic!! Grrrrrrrrr......"  To those people, Regen mechanics aren't realistic either. Battleship shells doing almost zero overpen damage on a DD when an AP shell would tear out the keel in real life is not realistic.  A carrier taking damage to its deck (Particularly for American and Japanese ships) and still being able to launch planes is not realistic.  Should we also give you repair times of 4 minutes when your flightdeck is hit by bombs or AP to simulate "Realism"?

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
Members
517 posts
4,705 battles

This interaction is never going to be balanced or feel good for anyone who isn't driving a CV. You don't have 3 classes playing one game and 1 playing a completely different one and have it be balanced. 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×