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

Bored about so many "loot box" threads?... lets talk about about CVs for a change :-P (PRACTICAL QUICK FIX PROPOSALS)

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles

So, the crates thingy has me so bored that makes the CV thingy looks fun in comparison. When bored I tend to think about useless stuff like how to improve the CV issues without doing any actual improvement...

The rules are simple, you can't change anything significant related to CVs, nor mechanics, nor values. You need to come up with some convoluted way to fix the issue without actually fixing the core problems. Here is what I thought:

Reducing the "visibility" of the problem. Taking a page from the old pre-rework CV, one good thing about them was they were few in the queue. By having fewer matches with CVs on them whatever problems they had, were less visible to the players. Now, we can't really ask for a decrease of popularity of CVs which will clearly go against the main purpose of the rework, but what if we could "dilute" the number of CVs in queue and their impact on player's game experience?.

My answer is, we need dedicated procedural generated dedicated CV Operations/scenarios for every tier in order to draw a portion of CV players out of the PvP modes and give them an option that is both more rewarding and entertaining than regular Coop.

Also, we need to expand the MM and introduce "special ships" slot to MM, so the surface ships numbers are unaffected by the addition of extra "special units" (CVs, Subs in the future). A big part of the problem of having 2 CV matches (for example) is that their attention becomes spread into even fewer units, attrition also becomes less significant. In a regular CV match the relation of CV per surface ship is 1:11 which in practical terms is somewhat reasonable. In double CV matches it falls to 1:5 which is almost universally agreed to be undesirable, extra slots would bring this number to 1:6 (far from desirable still, but at least an improvement). Even more desirable would be to make a special rule for 2 CV games and make them drop in larger maps with expanded Player numbers, lets say 14 per side (1:7).

Finally, reducing the CV tier spread to +1/-1 would instantly alleviate the more notorious cases of "my CV/AA is worthless". As practical example, my experience (related to CVs) on playing tier 7 has been more comfortable than playing tier 6 because I'm not subjected to the extreme disparity of being matched against a +2 CV. Now, I know about the problem that would involve in forming Divs with a CV, but well, little sacrifices need to be made and such a Div should be treated as a fail Div, meaning it will work in a +1/-2 tier spread. 

So CVs remain unaffected in its core but the environment becomes a little more "tolerant" for them. Voila! ...discuss.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
689 posts

im tired of talking about how cvs ruin the game ....why not talk about something that might be good coming up? like ranked sprints ..wouldnt hurt one bit for wows to accidentally leak some top secret info on the subject or subjects ...some of us are wondering  "HOWs IT GOING "

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[KNCOL]
Members
812 posts
2,006 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

So, the crates thingy has me so bored that makes the CV thingy looks fun in comparison. When bored I tend to think about useless stuff like how to improve the CV issues without doing any actual improvement...

The rules are simple, you can't change anything significant related to CVs, nor mechanics, nor values. You need to come up with some convoluted way to fix the issue without actually fixing the core problems. Here is what I thought:

Reducing the "visibility" of the problem. Taking a page from the old pre-rework CV, one good thing about them was they were few in the queue. By having fewer matches with CVs on them whatever problems they had, were less visible to the players. Now, we can't really ask for a decrease of popularity of CVs which will clearly go against the main purpose of the rework, but what if we could "dilute" the number of CVs in queue and their impact on player's game experience?.

My answer is, we need dedicated procedural generated dedicated CV Operations/scenarios for every tier in order to draw a portion of CV players out of the PvP modes and give them an option that is both more rewarding and entertaining than regular Coop.

Also, we need to expand the MM and introduce "special ships" slot to MM, so the surface ships numbers are unaffected by the addition of extra "special units" (CVs, Subs in the future). A big part of the problem of having 2 CV matches (for example) is that their attention becomes spread into even fewer units, attrition also becomes less significant. In a regular CV match the relation of CV per surface ship is 1:11 which in practical terms is somewhat reasonable. In double CV matches it falls to 1:5 which is almost universally agreed to be undesirable, extra slots would bring this number to 1:6 (far from desirable still, but at least an improvement). Even more desirable would be to make a special rule for 2 CV games and make them drop in larger maps with expanded Player numbers, lets say 14 per side (1:7).

Finally, reducing the CV tier spread to +1/-1 would instantly alleviate the more notorious cases of "my CV/AA is worthless". As practical example, my experience (related to CVs) on playing tier 7 has been more comfortable than playing tier 6 because I'm not subjected to the extreme disparity of being matched against a +2 CV. Now, I know about the problem that would involve in forming Divs with a CV, but well, little sacrifices need to be made and such a Div should be treated as a fail Div, meaning it will work in a +1/-2 tier spread. 

So CVs remain unaffected in its core but the environment becomes a little more "tolerant" for them. Voila! ...discuss.

I really like the +1/-1 mm idea. When I play tier 8 CVs I feel like I have too much power when facing most if not all tier 6 ships and when I am in a tier 10 match I feel like I cant do anything to really support my team (either by doing damage or spotting)

Also I cant wait to see this post get mostly ignored because it has decent ideas and actual discussion while other CV post that can be described as a 5 year old having a hissyfit get pages and pages of comments with no real discussion. 

Edited by Koogus
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
18 minutes ago, arch4random said:

im tired of talking about how cvs ruin the game ....why not talk about something that might be good coming up?

I agree CVs have become a tiresome topic, so I'm trying to present tangential solutions that would be agreeable to anyone involved whether it be carriers or surface ships. I would gladly talk about coming new ranked but I've nothing really to say about yet... not significant info. I could also talk about how interesting were the concepts tested in Key Battle mode, but that sparks even less interest than this topic... 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,065
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,064 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Taking a page from the old pre-rework CV, one good thing about them was they were few in the queue.

You might see this as a good thing, but WG doesn't.  And since it's their game, they're going to do what they can to increases the number of CVs being played.  It's as simple as that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
12 minutes ago, Koogus said:

I really like the +1/-1 mm idea. When I play tier 8 CVs I feel like I have too much power when facing most if not all tier 6 ships and when I am in a tier 10 match I feel like I cant do anything to really support my team (either by doing damage or spotting)

I can't really come up with any significant counterargument for reducing the tier spread of CVs (but the mentioned Div issue). Being that CV interaction is really dependent on the math side, up to the point of being practically a fixed function of time vs AA value,  makes sense to limit the range of the variables towards the center. 

16 minutes ago, Koogus said:

Also I cant wait to see this post get mostly ignored because it has decent ideas and actual discussion while other CV post that can be described as a 5 year old having a hissyfit get pages and pages of comments with no real discussion. 

Well, thank you for bumping it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

You might see this as a good thing, but WG doesn't.  And since it's their game, they're going to do what they can to increases the number of CVs being played.  It's as simple as that.

I know it is a bit of "moving the goal post" but you still can achieve an increased number of CV matches dividing them between different game modes. Also, if you increase the number of total matches (by increasing participation) even if the % of CV matches remain roughly equal, the total number of CVs being played increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,452
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,456 posts
14,821 battles
23 minutes ago, Koogus said:

I really like the +1/-1 mm idea. When I play tier 8 CVs I feel like I have too much power when facing most if not all tier 6 ships and when I am in a tier 10 match I feel like I cant do anything to really support my team (either by doing damage or spotting)

Also I cant wait to see this post get mostly ignored because it has decent ideas and actual discussion while other CV post that can be described as a 5 year old having a hissyfit get pages and pages of comments with no real discussion. 

My suggestion early on in the testing of the rework that a modifier be applied to AA, a reduction against lower tier planes and an increase against higher tier planes. Now this won't mollify the hard core CV haters who find even one in one hundred CV matches too much but it would make life a lot better for both the CV players when up tiered and the other players when they are up tiered to the CV.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
458
[-BCO-]
Members
1,197 posts
2,367 battles
28 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I agree CVs have become a tiresome topic, so I'm trying to present tangential solutions that would be agreeable to anyone involved whether it be carriers or surface ships.

I would say the more talk, the merrier it is :).I wouldn't say it is a negative thing debating Cv's and their effect on the game.  I mean in the long run.Maybe some ego's get brushed, but it is beneficial for the game.

28 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

 I could also talk about how interesting were the concepts tested in Key Battle mode, but that sparks even less interest than this topic... 

Hmm... I wouldn't bet on it,  buut the energy distribution scheme on the Gale...... I kinda see it related to Cvs. Interestingly there were three consumables right? And also Cv's have three kind of planes...And it would kinda make sense.....

 

Edited by Bandi73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

My suggestion early on in the testing of the rework that a modifier be applied to AA, a reduction against lower tier planes and an increase against higher tier planes. Now this won't mollify the hard core CV haters who find even one in one hundred CV matches too much but it would make life a lot better for both the CV players when up tiered and the other players when they are up tiered to the CV.

I'm not sure how easy would it be to implement, looks like a double set of rules and that is usually undesirable as a principle. From a coding perspective it could be a hassle. Not that I'm against it, but that solution looks like involve significant time to implement. Editing the tier spread for the type should be a really easy change to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,052
[ARGSY]
Members
22,236 posts
16,189 battles

DISCLOSURE/BACKGROUND: I owned and played Langley, Bogue, Independence and Hosho in PvE and PvP before the rework. I opted to keep all my carriers rather than trade them in, and I think the Rework is better for me overall than RTS was; certainly friendlier in Randoms. 

I currently have all tech-tree carrier lines to Tier 8, UK CV to Tier 10, and I own all the premium CVs except FDR, so I am talking from the viewpoint of someone who plays and likes carriers but is willing to admit that there are SOME issues at least which need addressing and on which I would be prepared to discuss compromises.

With that out of the way...

 

54 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Editing the tier spread for the type should be a really easy change to implement.

The problem I see with this is that it potentially offers the opportunity for a pair of OP Tier 5 ships, e.g. a Giulio and a Gremy, to div up with a Hosho, Hermes, Langley or Rhein and use it as an anchor to guarantee themselves a top-tier fight (as an unforeseen consequence). It also gives a foot in the door to those who would like to demand +/- 1 matchmaking for ALL ships and would use its application specifically to carriers as an opportunity to generate forum salt.

 

One thing that made T4 CV bearable in the old days was that T4 RTS carriers had fighters and could offer active protection to ships with no AA. I know some of the skills in the skill rework are geared toward enhancing interceptor capabilities in the CAP fighters of T6 and up, one of which is at the cost of disallowing ship spotting. Maybe it's time to give T4 carriers the CAP drop function the higher tier ships have. 

Entering a zone of DFAA needs to blow the targeting reticle out to its full extent again.

Carriers need to burn and flood for a lot longer than they currently do.

Thought should be given to re-enabling detonation in CVs, at least in the context of citadel hits from heavy shells.

When we went from RTS to rework, I noticed an abrupt drop in the amount of credits I was bringing home in co-op. Most of this was due to unfamiliar aiming and attack mechanisms resulting in lower damage, hence lower credit yields, but I think there were other changes made including battle costs. Making carriers more lucrative or less expensive in co-op at mid to high tiers might make the difference between some players staying in co-op and wandering into randoms because they feel it's costing them too much to play sustainably in co-op. 

Operations is a dead end, IMHO. I don't think WG is interested in putting massive effort into these, especially not for a specific ship type. If anything, a well played CV is a huge asset in Operation Newport, enabling longer-ranged ships to have spotting and open fire sooner, but the relative unpopularity of that operation and the tendency of randomly assembled teams which don't understand what has to be done and tend to fail it militates against it anyway.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,452
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,456 posts
14,821 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

I'm not sure how easy would it be to implement, looks like a double set of rules and that is usually undesirable as a principle. From a coding perspective it could be a hassle. Not that I'm against it, but that solution looks like involve significant time to implement. Editing the tier spread for the type should be a really easy change to implement.

All it would take is a simple If Then statement. If tier equals higher AA is reduced by X, if tier equals lower AA is increased by Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
1 hour ago, Bandi73 said:

the energy distribution scheme on the Gale...... I kinda see it related to Cvs. Interestingly there were three consumables right? And also Cv's have three kind of planes...And it would kinda make sense.....

The energy distribution usually applies in terms of offensive power/defensive power/speed, I don't really see it particularly related to CVs, maybe applying it to regen of a particular type of plane over the other two but I don't think so because it would be too easy to abuse your favorite/preferred plane, defeating the purpose of balancing plane types. I see it more likely applied to subs, governing speed/reload/repair. 

33 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The problem I see with this is that it potentially offers the opportunity for a pair of OP Tier 5 ships, e.g. a Giulio and a Gremy, to div up with a Hosho, Hermes, Langley or Rhein and use it as an anchor to guarantee themselves a top-tier fight (as an unforeseen consequence). It also gives a foot in the door to those who would like to demand +/- 1 matchmaking for ALL ships and would use its application specifically to carriers as an opportunity to generate forum salt.

That's what I meant saying a Div with CVs would operate as fail Divs. I this case, the CV would be operating under the T5 MM bracket, meaning the Hosho will be pulled up to T7 matches, and the T5 ships get no benefit from it since they operate under their normal bracket.

In normal circumstances, a T8 CV (for example) divisioning with same tier surface ships, would be able to face T10 matches (normal surface spread) but won't see T6 matches (normal CV spread), so such Divs will have a T7-T10 spread.

40 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Operations is a dead end, IMHO. I don't think WG is interested in putting massive effort into these, especially not for a specific ship type. 

I think they will be wise enough to understand in the coming future the great PvE potential this game has. You don't need a huge player base to run PvE modes and keep making modest profit for a long time. IMO the far future of this game resides in PvE.

45 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

a well played CV is a huge asset in Operation Newport, enabling longer-ranged ships to have spotting and open fire sooner, but the relative unpopularity of that operation and the tendency of randomly assembled teams which don't understand what has to be done and tend to fail it militates against it anyway.

I haven't run CVs in Ops yet but when I'm tempted to finally doing CVs I'm sure it will be in Ops. Basically any Op guarantees you will have enough time to make a meaningful contribution (unlike Coop which is too quick). I've seen CVs doing great in any T6 Op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
7 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

All it would take is a simple If Then statement. If tier equals higher AA is reduced by X, if tier equals lower AA is increased by Y.

You'll need to define X, Y, and apply the algorithm to every ship but you know what? I'll be perfectly happy if they implement the change you propose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,416
[SALVO]
Members
2,662 posts
6,775 battles

I like your suggestion quite a bit.  The real message though that I am getting from this thread is that I still need to recruit more forumites. To see even more Salvo tags. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,484
[KIA-C]
Members
3,576 posts
15,756 battles
7 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

reducing the CV tier spread to +1/-1

 

If you do this then you better give a solid explanation to not apply that rule for surface ship. CV suffer as much as as surface ship when bottom tier but unlike stuff like BB CA or DD, they don't risk their ship when facing a ship 2 tier higher.  Yeah sure you can lose planes when attacking near a Wooster but then again you could have checked before if there was another ship protecting your target.

 

Another issue is simply the MM. If there are 24 players waiting in queue and you have 2 CV among these players, MM will have to check each player within the MM to see if it's a top tier, middle tier or low tier as well as check if the said player has to be put as a top tier ship, bottom tier ship or middle tier ship based on his previous MM.

Giving -1/+1 MM only to CV will most likely just increase the waiting time for nothing and eventually the game will just throw you in a 3 vs 3 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
[APEZ]
Members
2,516 posts
8,937 battles
1 hour ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

What is the point to proposing solutions when after all this time  WG doesn't think there's a problem?

A man of reason, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[SALVO]
Members
5,931 posts
4,946 battles
2 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

If you do this then you better give a solid explanation to not apply that rule for surface ship. CV suffer as much as as surface ship when bottom tier but unlike stuff like BB CA or DD, they don't risk their ship when facing a ship 2 tier higher.  Yeah sure you can lose planes when attacking near a Wooster but then again you could have checked before if there was another ship protecting your target.

Given the automated nature of AA fire, CV interaction with surface ships is overwhelmingly a mathematical exercise with limited skill input in relation to receiving/delivering  damage. The CV pays a somewhat fixed tax in planes in relation to time expended inside the AA bubble. In surface ships interaction there is more room to compensate the tier disadvantage with skill and knowledge, you can position, angle, manage your munition, etc in order to level the table. CV vs AA is automated and mathematical, in consequence highly dependent on the relation between AA/HP values, limiting the spread makes sense because it limits the more extreme imbalances on the relation. You worry about giving the CV the advantage of not being at -2 tier disadvantage, I worry about not giving the other surface ship the disadvantage of facing a +2 tier CV. I would gladly trade all the times I am +2 tiers against the CV for the times I'm at -2. 

2 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Another issue is simply the MM. If there are 24 players waiting in queue and you have 2 CV among these players, MM will have to check each player within the MM to see if it's a top tier, middle tier or low tier as well as check if the said player has to be put as a top tier ship, bottom tier ship or middle tier ship based on his previous MM.

I really don't understand what you are trying to say pal... MM will work as always, as it does for the odd tiers, I don't see any issue with it.

2 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Giving -1/+1 MM only to CV will most likely just increase the waiting time for nothing and eventually the game will just throw you in a 3 vs 3 games.

Again, I don't understand how it would increase waiting times... maybe a tiny bit for CVs but working in conjunction with the other ideas proposed in the OP, I think it would balance out the number and waiting time of CVs in queue.

2 hours ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

What is the point to proposing solutions when after all this time  WG doesn't think there's a problem?

Opening a door to improve the playing experience without actually acknowledging there is a problem about it. It is a way to "save face" yet doing something about it. Also it would work also for subs, when they finally come. Having Special ship slots in the match line up, and dedicated Scenarios for the special (non surface) ships would help a lot in limiting the disruption of regular PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[COOP2]
Members
357 posts
9,156 battles

I was thinking what could help is reducing the manuverability of the squadrons(increase the turing circle/radius say 25%), because it is much easier for a squadron to reposition for a good shot versus a ship, so it should be harder for them to be able to turn and line up shots (especially conssidering the speed they go compared to a ship),

and make constant air attacks more costly for the carrier by either A. reducing the health of the planes, or B. reduce the regen of planes. I don't think they need a fixed squadron size, just a slower regen rate or planes that get chewed up more so at the end of the battle the constant attacks have stripped the squadrons and made them less effective. I'm not talking 50-70%, again more like 20% or so.

I know carriers can be stripped of planes after some matches (and we've seen pics of this by people trying to prove their point that there isn't a balance problem), but it doesn't happen often enough. Too often carriers can attack with impunity, not get punished for it, and it especially makes the end of matches tiresome. This is especially true at tier 4 because practically none of the ships down there have any AA and this is not how you want new players to experience this game over and over or they won't stay with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
458
[-BCO-]
Members
1,197 posts
2,367 battles
11 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

The energy distribution usually applies in terms of offensive power/defensive power/speed, I don't really see it particularly related to CVs, maybe applying it to regen of a particular type of plane over the other two but I don't think so because it would be too easy to abuse your favorite/preferred plane, defeating the purpose of balancing plane types. I see it more likely applied to subs, governing speed/reload/repair. 

 

Yes. But you are looking at this from the.. "wrong" perspective:).That of a player. You are assuming balance reasons when it could "balans" reasons:) Cv players long requested the possibility to redistribute plane production.between different planes.

Regarding subs........hmm.....that's actually a real possibility and you maybe right  I certainly can see subs micromanaging their power distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×