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

3 changes to consider, please

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles

3: Change the Clan name to something that relates to a naval combat game. Some of the suggestions that i've read are battle fleet or battle group. You wouldn't even have to redesign nor reconfigure the system.

2: Stop picking on the IJN lines. They often times get the biggest effective nerfs, and rarely get a buff. The number of premium ships in some lines pales in comparison to most other nations, and this is getting sort of weird.

1: Split Random battles at T4 into two distinct lines, one including CVs and all the AA to counter, maybe place subs in that (if you really have to), and a separate line for surface vessels... there is already a fairly well defined split in place now, what with many ships having zero effective AA, and many ship lines that were designed around AA. The vast majority of the RL versions (i know, not a simulator, arcade) T5 ships and lower were built and served in the '20s during which time Naval Air combat was in it's infancy, and certainly did not include missile firing single wing aircraft... if you are concerned nobody will select the CV side, then up the credits and payouts, give us some incentives rather than continuing to bludgeon us over the head to try to figure out how to play in a way that will work in an unbalanced game.

just for your consideration. thank you!

spud

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,082
[SALVO]
Members
25,826 posts
28,174 battles
11 minutes ago, Spud_butt said:

3: Change the Clan name to something that relates to a naval combat game. Some of the suggestions that i've read are battle fleet or battle group. You wouldn't even have to redesign nor reconfigure the system.

2: Stop picking on the IJN lines. They often times get the biggest effective nerfs, and rarely get a buff. The number of premium ships in some lines pales in comparison to most other nations, and this is getting sort of weird.

1: Split Random battles at T4 into two distinct lines, one including CVs and all the AA to counter, maybe place subs in that (if you really have to), and a separate line for surface vessels... there is already a fairly well defined split in place now, what with many ships having zero effective AA, and many ship lines that were designed around AA. The vast majority of the RL versions (i know, not a simulator, arcade) T5 ships and lower were built and served in the '20s during which time Naval Air combat was in it's infancy, and certainly did not include missile firing single wing aircraft... if you are concerned nobody will select the CV side, then up the credits and payouts, give us some incentives rather than continuing to bludgeon us over the head to try to figure out how to play in a way that will work in an unbalanced game.

just for your consideration. thank you!

spud

3. This suggestion is thoroughly confusing.  I'm not sure what you're asking for and from whom.  Are you asking for the term "clan" to be changed by WG?  Or are you asking clans to use names that are more naval in nature?

 

2. I agree.  Regarding the torp boat DDs, it's frustrating having torps that are so easy to detect.  It doesn't matter how hard hitting they are if they're ridiculously easy to avoid.  It sort of seems like only the Shimmy avoids this and only because it sidesteps the issue by throwing so many torps at once that avoiding them can be rather difficult.  And I suppose that the Yukikaze isn't all that bad either since its F3 torps are so fast that target ships have little time to avoid them even though they are easy to detect.

 

1. I completely disagree.  The proper solution, IMO, is to give those low tier ships more or some AA.  The problem with these low tier ships is that they have no AA because they didn't face CVs during the WW1 era.  But in this game where CVs are shoe-horned into the WW1 era, WG should have given these ships fictional AA upgrades, because in real life, if those CVs had fought in WW1, it's a certainty that navies would have started giving their ships AA, even if it was only machine guns and pedestal guns.

Alternatively, another proper solution would be to remove tier 4 CVs entirely.  This suggestion isn't made out of CV hate, but out of realism (sorta).    Removing the tier 4 CVs would be simpler to accomplish than having to add AA to a considerable number of tier 3-4 ships.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,618
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,579 posts
4,223 battles
27 minutes ago, Spud_butt said:

3: Change the Clan name to something that relates to a naval combat game. Some of the suggestions that i've read are battle fleet or battle group. You wouldn't even have to redesign nor reconfigure the system.

Eh, why? Everyone understands what the word clan means, why complicate it?

27 minutes ago, Spud_butt said:

2: Stop picking on the IJN lines. They often times get the biggest effective nerfs, and rarely get a buff. The number of premium ships in some lines pales in comparison to most other nations, and this is getting sort of weird.

IJN is a torpedo focused line in a game where most ships have a good torpedo counter (hydro is everywhere now). And CVs have killed their stealth advantage. I agree, they need some help.

27 minutes ago, Spud_butt said:

1: Split Random battles at T4 into two distinct lines, one including CVs and all the AA to counter, maybe place subs in that (if you really have to), and a separate line for surface vessels... there is already a fairly well defined split in place now, what with many ships having zero effective AA, and many ship lines that were designed around AA. The vast majority of the RL versions (i know, not a simulator, arcade) T5 ships and lower were built and served in the '20s during which time Naval Air combat was in it's infancy, and certainly did not include missile firing single wing aircraft... if you are concerned nobody will select the CV side, then up the credits and payouts, give us some incentives rather than continuing to bludgeon us over the head to try to figure out how to play in a way that will work in an unbalanced game.

The issue there is there is no AA to counter. And yeah, no one would select the CV side, and I don't think any amount of incentives would do it. "Hmm, play with guaranteed no CVs, or play where the entire population of the most disliked class in the game is concentrated, hard choice...." Splitting CVs out of the general population would instantly kill CVs because no one would want to play with them as the surface targets. Like it or not, CVs are going to live or die in the general Random Battle population. Same with subs, they will start in their own gamemode, but if WG ever wants them to be a full 5th ship type they will have to put them in Random battles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KAPPA]
Members
3,117 posts
8,837 battles

3 simply won't happen.

A: WoWS doesn't have the population to split random like that.

B: All the ships above T5 or 6 that have horrible AA are balanced around that.

C: T4 CVs are largely weak because of the low AA around at those tiers. If AA was properly added, CVs would just get buffed, and I don't mean by a little. Sure, certain T4 CVs have been a bit strong at times (Houshou) but by and large, CVs at T4 are just as likely to miss a good drop or strike simply because RNG demands it due to their low ordinance density. It's like trying to play Mikasa outside of torp drops, largely because torps by their very nature are accurate. It's the entire reason Houshou was so absurd when they upped her torps to 2 per drop.

Houshou never should have gotten that buff exactly as it was giving. Her torp damage should have been reduced when they gave her a second torp to balance the torps not working properly when you only have a single torp. Likewise, Hermes needs a second torp per drop because it's really annoying to have the torp able to deviate left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,104
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,313 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I completely disagree.  The proper solution, IMO, is to give those low tier ships more or some AA. 

I would rather see tier 4 CVs removed completely, and let the CV lines start at tier 6, where ships actually have SOME AA.

59 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Splitting CVs out of the general population would instantly kill CVs because no one would want to play with them as the surface targets.

Absolutely true; no one except CV players wants to play against CVs. Remove the worst, tier 4, and go on from there.

5 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

T4 CVs are largely weak because of the low AA around at those tiers. If AA was properly added, CVs would just get buffed, and I don't mean by a little. Sure, certain T4 CVs have been a bit strong at times (Houshou) but by and large, CVs at T4 are just as likely to miss a good drop or strike simply because RNG demands it due to their low ordinance density. It's like trying to play Mikasa outside of torp drops, largely because torps by their very nature are accurate. It's the entire reason Houshou was so absurd when they upped her torps to 2 per drop.

Houshou never should have gotten that buff exactly as it was giving. Her torp damage should have been reduced when they gave her a second torp to balance the torps not working properly when you only have a single torp. Likewise, Hermes needs a second torp per drop because it's really annoying to have the torp able to deviate left and right.

This is complete nonsense; tier 4 CVs have the exact same mechanics as every other tier of CVs except for fighters. Ships from tier 3 and tier 4 should never see CVs as they have little or no AA; let CVs start at tier 6 and tell the seal clubbers to get a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KAPPA]
Members
3,117 posts
8,837 battles
39 minutes ago, Umikami said:

This is complete nonsense; tier 4 CVs have the exact same mechanics as every other tier of CVs except for fighters. Ships from tier 3 and tier 4 should never see CVs as they have little or no AA; let CVs start at tier 6 and tell the seal clubbers to get a life.

The same mechanics, yes, outside of back when they had single drop torps on both Langley and Houshou. Now only Hermes suffers through it. It's why doubling the torps is important, but they also needed to halve the damage as well to compensate, as 2 torps is more potent just by removing the scary amount of wiggle the torps get.

A: T6 CVs drop more bombs/rockets than T4. T8 CVs drop more bombs/rockets than T6. T10 CVs drop more bombs/rockets than T8.

They all drop on the same area, but higher tiers drop more and more bombs and launch more and more rockets, resulting in more consistent strikes.

This leads to far greater likelihood to miss bombs and rockets the lower the tier, even if they damage itself isn't that much lower.

The only real exceptions to this are things like Ark Royal and Hermes. They both drop far greater numbers, but they are far, far worse pen. Which is part of why I'd call Ark OP, as she plays like a T10 CV but with worse speed and bum rockets but T6 matchmaking to make up for it. Hermes, on the other hand, has such low pen that she's just painful to try and play. Enterprise is also technically an exception, though dropping 6 AP bombs isn't quite as easy to equate due to lower pen, making her a monster against cruisers but making certain BBs outright immune. But, well... pre-nerf she dropped up to 36k, so still OP, just in a slightly Asashio-like way.

B: Dropping 2 torps leads to one being able to veer somewhat left and one being able to veer somewhat right.

Dropping just one allows it to veer crazily to both left and right, resulting in perfect accuracy drops missing badly for no real reason.

C: CVs need to learn somewhere, and T6 is far, far too hard for that, as even that amount of flak would simply result in nearly no strikes being gotten off till they figure things out. If anything, I'd move T4 CVs to T5 and buff them, but even that is probably too much, as they'd never get low tier matchmaking so as to make it easier like T2-4 ships get.

T4 CVs are pretty dang terrible when you get down to it, doubly so if they have AP bombs, as many ships just get overpenned and you drop just 1 AP bomb in the same area as others drop 3.

Edited by Shoggoth_pinup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
729 posts
10,104 battles
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

And yeah, no one would select the CV side, and I don't think any amount of incentives would do it. "Hmm, play with guaranteed no CVs, or play where the entire population of the most disliked class in the game is concentrated, hard choice...." Splitting CVs out of the general population would instantly kill CVs because no one would want to play with them as the surface targets.

One might think that a more, er, mentally typical developer would see that given the option nobody would play in the queue with CVs, and take that as a sign there is something wrong with CVs. It is probably true that Wargaming will never address it, but that says more about Wargaming.

 

42 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

T4 CVs are largely weak because of the low AA around at those tiers.

Tier 4 CVs have a massive advantage in damage output over tier 4 ships. Weak AA is not particularly significant, after all tier 6 CVs can get all of their drops off against many tier 6 ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,082
[SALVO]
Members
25,826 posts
28,174 battles
2 hours ago, AJTP89 said:

IJN is a torpedo focused line in a game where most ships have a good torpedo counter (hydro is everywhere now). And CVs have killed their stealth advantage. I agree, they need some help.

I disagree with this statement.  The presumption in this statement is that CV planes can be everywhere all the time, which is, of course, completely untrue.

Carriers' ability to neutralize a DD's stealth advantage is very localized and usually fairly short term.

 

OTOH, I completely agree with you about hydro.  There are very few cruisers that don't have hydro.  Of course, IIRC, only German BBs have hydro.  And not that many DDs have hydro.  However, since some cruisers like to fight from pretty far back, particularly in the high tiers, having hydro isn't going to be particularly helpful.  I suspect that hydro is more helpful for mid tier cruisers and cruisers that prefer fighting closer to the front lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,651
[SALVO]
Members
5,988 posts
4,946 battles
5 hours ago, Crucis said:

Alternatively, another proper solution would be to remove tier 4 CVs entirely.  This suggestion isn't made out of CV hate, but out of realism (sorta).    Removing the tier 4 CVs would be simpler to accomplish than having to add AA to a considerable number of tier 3-4 ships.  

 

4 hours ago, Umikami said:

I would rather see tier 4 CVs removed completely, and let the CV lines start at tier 6, 

I'll cast my vote on no CVs at T4, maybe replace them for a hybrid sea plane tender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,104
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,313 battles
11 hours ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

T4 CVs are pretty dang terrible when you get down to it

This is what is terrible; one ship, the CV, can inflict damage while the other ship cannot. Balance that.

7 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I'll cast my vote on no CVs at T4, maybe replace them for a hybrid sea plane tender.

While it would be interesting to see what WG would come up with for a tier 4 seaplane tender hybrid, the spotting does as much damage as the CV. For the USN they could just keep Langley, as she was converted into a seaplane tender and was sailing as such when she was sunk. I'm not sure what they would use for the IJN but it couldn't possibly be that hard as the Japanese were in love with the things. Brits and Germans could be an issue however, though it's not like there aren't complete fantasy ships in the game already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,104
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,313 battles
11 hours ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

CVs need to learn somewhere, and T6 is far, far too hard for that

Complete and utter nonsense; let them learn in co-op if randoms are "too hard"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KAPPA]
Members
3,117 posts
8,837 battles
3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Complete and utter nonsense; let them learn in co-op if randoms are "too hard"!

Co-op is harder than random for a CV to do well. The bots cluster together like crazy and matches are too short to do much as a CV unless you play a very specific way that is about as far from random battle as it gets. The only CV I'd truly call good for co-op is Kaga, and that's because she can suicide planes basically endlessly. Of course, there are arguments for secondary builds on Zep and T8+ KM CVs, but at that point you might as well go Bismarck.

Heck, even T6 ops are often too much if you can't dodge flak, as the bots tend to spawn in huge lumps in most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,104
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,313 battles
3 hours ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

Co-op is harder than random for a CV to do well.

Well OK then ... randoms it is!

  • 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.

×