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

Make Dive-Bombing more predictable, but more Citadel-based

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

One of the most frustrating things about dive-bombing is that it's like checking up on Schödinger's cat four/six times every time you try to bomb a ship, and you usually only get one or two hits, for an "okay" amount of damage. It's not very skill-based; anyone can hit someone with dive bombers, and anyone can be RNG-screwed.


I want the aiming circles for dive-bombers do be dramatically smaller on manual-dropping, so much smaller that it takes actual skill to group your hits instead of just finger-crossing your toes, but also so that your shots will almost always hit your target if you manual-aim well enough.

 

Also, dive bombers should be given their AP bombs and thus be given less damage for a "regular" hit, but the chance to get citadel hits for large amounts of damage if aimed well.

 

This would A) help the carrier in its role to destroy large surface ships, and B) allow destroyer captains to breathe easier. For one thing, the bombs would do less damage except on citadel, so it's less likely that a player will attack a destroyer unless directly threatened. Also, destroyers can't be citadel-ed. Thus, this is not insta-destroyer screwing. In fact, it's actually beneficial to both the carrier and the destroyer, as the carrier gets more damage against the larger ships and has a better contribution to the team, and the destroyer will get VB-nuked less often.

 

As a final argument, there is no reason why a perfectly-manually-aimed VB drop should completely miss a lone-wolfing battleship.

Edited by Raze_3
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

I wonder if changing the manual drop to concentric circles would help. The further out you commit to the drop, the smaller the disbursement radius is, and it gets bigger the further in you go.

Edited by cometguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

I wonder if changing the manual drop to concentric circles would help. The further out you commit to the drop, the smaller the disbursement radius is, and it gets bigger the further in you go.

 

It's an idea, but the problem is that a lot of ships do radical things like turn. Your lead would have to be atrocious and perfect. Plus, currently, 6 hits isn't all that much damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,681 posts
8,111 battles

One of the most frustrating things about dive-bombing is that it's like checking up on Schödinger's cat four/six times every time you try to bomb a ship, and you usually only get one or two hits, for an "okay" amount of damage. It's not very skill-based; anyone can hit someone with dive bombers, and anyone can be RNG-screwed.

 

I want the aiming circles for dive-bombers do be dramatically smaller on manual-dropping, so much smaller that it takes actual skill to group your hits instead of just finger-crossing your toes, but also so that your shots will almost always hit your target if you manual-aim well enough.

 

Also, dive bombers should be given their AP bombs and thus be given less damage for a "regular" hit, but the chance to get citadel hits for large amounts of damage if aimed well.

 

This would A) help the carrier in its role to destroy large surface ships, and B) allow destroyer captains to breathe easier. For one thing, the bombs would do less damage except on citadel, so it's less likely that a player will attack a destroyer unless directly threatened. Also, destroyers can't be citadel-ed. Thus, this is not insta-destroyer screwing. In fact, it's actually beneficial to both the carrier and the destroyer, as the carrier gets more damage against the larger ships and has a better contribution to the team, and the destroyer will get VB-nuked less often.

 

As a final argument, there is no reason why a perfectly-manually-aimed VB drop should completely miss a lone-wolfing battleship.

I'm pretty sure WG have discussed it before, WG intended not to give AP bombs for dive bombers to relieve stress on bbs and decrease the amount of CV early rush. Honestly AP bombs can citadel bbs very often judging both from historical background(RIP Arizona) and Armor viewer model, for example, the bomb that detonated Arizona was modified from the battleship Nagato's 16 inch shells, therefore having alomst half of the penetration power from a real 16 inch plunging fire. Yet the deck armor of bbs, at least in current versions, is completely incompetant in defending the poor bbs. I guess you can see how big is the citadel of bbs from the top, expecially the german once. Even if the bomb didn't citadel a bb, it can very easily destroy the turrets of battleships as the top of the turrets are armored just enough to prevent overpens, yet not enough to stop the bomb (lolz).

Also this drastically increased the burst potential of CVs, as if the torpedo bomber squadrons are not davastating enough.

Good thoughts thou, and personally I really hope there is a way WG can incoperate this into the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,290
[SYN]
Members
5,949 posts
13,841 battles

Also, dive bombers should be given their AP bombs and thus be given less damage for a "regular" hit, but the chance to get citadel hits for large amounts of damage if aimed well.

 

Not critiquing you, but this has been brought up so many times in the past that no one even bothers talking about it anymore.

 

I rarely play carriers, and don't particularly care for how carrier play is implemented in this game, but I do agree that SAP bombs should be added.  Only makes sense.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,080
Alpha Tester
6,683 posts
3,338 battles

 it's like checking up on Schödinger's cat four/six times every time you try to bomb a ship

 

You're misusing Schrodinger's Cat. He came up with that as so to point out the flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics by Neihls Bohr and Werner Heisenberg (that's literally all of the physics that I've ever looked up, the rest I've gotten from educational TV, books, and The Big Bang Theory).

Edited by 1Sherman
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

I'm pretty sure WG have discussed it before, WG intended not to give AP bombs for dive bombers to relieve stress on bbs and decrease the amount of CV early rush.

I understand where you're coming from, however, with the amount of AA that BBs get, and the DF power that cruisers, and fighters, and destroyers, and carriers get at tiers 8+ is just too much. Something needs to be done about it, and I don't think that VBs, which usually flew at higher altitude so that they could pull-off their dives, should be affected as much by DF. I feel that my solution is a good way to make carrier-playing more skill-based and less RNGesus-based.

You're misusing Schrodinger's Cat. He came up with that as so to point out the flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics by Neihls Bohr and Werner Heisenberg (that's literally all of the physics that I've ever looked up, the rest I've gotten from educational TV, books, and The Big Bang Theory).

The point is still that there are two states for an object (bomb): dead (a miss) or alive (a hit). This is randomly-determined, but never resolves itself until you actually test it (i.e: try to attack something). Thus, the bomb is, when not dropped, both a hit and a miss at the same time, and only testing it (running it through the random number generator) will determine which one it will be.

Edited by Raze_3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

 

It's an idea, but the problem is that a lot of ships do radical things like turn. Your lead would have to be atrocious and perfect. Plus, currently, 6 hits isn't all that much damage.

 

Well, they could alter the size of the rings if need be.  Another option would be to have the size of the target area shrink the longer you hold the manual aim reticle still, and increase as you move it, something where tiny adjustments wouldn't be too punishing.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

 

Well, they could alter the size of the rings if need be.  Another option would be to have the size of the target area shrink the longer you hold the manual aim reticle still, and increase as you move it, something where tiny adjustments wouldn't be too punishing.

 

I get it. It's a god idea. I just wish that they would make it, on the whole, smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

Ya, I just wonder if having it be constantly smaller wouldn't make hitting anything but a DD incredibly easy. Even with the hits, db doesn't seem to ballpark tb damage, so people don't evade.

Edited by cometguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[NG-NL]
Members
7,138 posts
12,577 battles

People would start complaining very quickly if US DB get AP. The 3 DB on Lexington carry 1K HE. You know how much damage that does to one ship if just 12 hit? About 30K or so damage, enough to 1-shot a CA/DD and rip off 40% of a BB's HP (along with lots of fires). Turn that into AP, and with a little luck, US DB are feared just as much as the TB.

 

DDs might appreciate the AP, since HE bombs really hurt them, but they might dislike AP simply because it wipes their teammates out sooner. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[-FBS-]
Members
2,646 posts
4,290 battles

DB's need a rework. It is frustrating for both parties because as the user, autodrops suck. Manual drops are fairly hard to aim and even on a perfect drop can still miss. It is frustrating for enemies because they really can't evade manual drops, especially for DD's where one bomb knocks out a significant chunk of HP. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

People would start complaining very quickly if US DB get AP. The 3 DB on Lexington carry 1K HE. You know how much damage that does to one ship if just 12 hit? About 30K or so damage, enough to 1-shot a CA/DD and rip off 40% of a BB's HP (along with lots of fires). Turn that into AP, and with a little luck, US DB are feared just as much as the TB.

 

DDs might appreciate the AP, since HE bombs really hurt them, but they might dislike AP simply because it wipes their teammates out sooner. 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have a Lex yet, so I don't have any experience with the 1,000lb bomb. Still got 43k more experience to grind. *sighs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[NG-NL]
Members
7,138 posts
12,577 battles

DB's need a rework. It is frustrating for both parties because as the user, autodrops suck. Manual drops are fairly hard to aim and even on a perfect drop can still miss. It is frustrating for enemies because they really can't evade manual drops, especially for DD's where one bomb knocks out a significant chunk of HP. 

 

Rework into what exactly? DB have flight and other pre-attack actions that take time, so at best 5-8 sorties during entire 20-minute match.

 

Manual aim with DB is rather easy if approaching the ship from behind. Besides, upon hitting Battle! anyone choosing to run a DD has accepted the risk of facing a good CV that will hunt him down, period. If they want any practice at dodging manual drop, they just need to play CV themselves, get used to the timing.

 

As for the players getting frustrated, I say deal with it. Typically CVs go for yoloers, and anyone that yolos during a CV match generally takes this risk. If they want to QQ, tough. They can group with other ships or accept the risk every time they yolo. I wouldn't care if you're Brad Pitt and yoloing in your glorious Gearing, to me you're just another DD to kill; I'd just laugh if he got butthurt and starts raging about how he's gonna sue me for ruining his game and all.

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have a Lex yet, so I don't have any experience with the 1,000lb bomb. Still got 43k more experience to grind. *sighs*

 

My experience is from being bombed by lexingtons.

Edited by Reymu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
1,828 battles

I'm ok with how bomb damage works. It's just the painful RNG accuracy that hurts my soul. Just change it to drop in a fixed pattern like torpedo bombers.

 

rYdGLIJ.png

 

Also, bombers under panic should have their bomb pattern set to the auto-drop spread like torpedoes are, not the double sized area. Right now panicked torps can still reliably get 2 hits per drop but a panicked bomber isn't going to hit anything.

Edited by Caffynated
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[NG-NL]
Members
7,138 posts
12,577 battles

I'm ok with how bomb damage works. It's just the painful RNG accuracy that hurts my soul. Just change it to drop in a fixed pattern like torpedo bombers.

 

rYdGLIJ.png

 

Also, bombers under panic should have their bomb pattern set to the auto-drop spread like torpedoes are, not the double sized area. Right now panicked torps can still reliably get 2 hits per drop but a panicked bomber isn't going to hit anything.

 

Quick work with Paint, but very nice. Suppose this could be a viable rework for the Air Supremacy captain skill.

 

Can see players on both sides complaining. Guaranteed hits from DB always annoy someone, and CV captains will get upset if their 2:30-min volley only kills the fishes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
4,964 battles

From what I remember the 'Attack Run Circle' (dashed lines) for DBs is the same size as TBs. 

 

If the DB's circle was smaller it would make the reaction window for evasive maneuvers smaller. Would it be super beneficial? Not entirely, any ship with enemy planes overhead should be going evasive the moment they're spotted. But it would make manual drop adjustments easier to be done. 

---

Sadly DB's are the forgotten stepchild of the Fleet Air Arm, the Modules and Commander skills are more geared towards either Fighters or Torpedo Bombers. 

 

Why would any Carrier commander choose Demolition Expert to boost his DB's over Aircraft Servicing Expert or Air Supremacy + 1pt? 

Arguably AFT + MCAA are better choices over DE if you choose not to pick up AS. Because in a 2v2 CV game the chances of an Alpha-strike is reasonably high. 

 

The DB's Specialization options within the game are lackluster. They're located in Air Superiority modules to frustrate you at attempting damage and they're located in Strike Modules to clog up your flight deck rotations. 

 

Could simply be my lack of luck or faith in RNGesus... but I've managed to miss a BB that ran aground dodging a Torpedo strike only to have my DB's miss a center-mass shot on a stationary target with a Manual Drop. 

 

I'd trade less Alpha Damage AND %firechance for a substantial increase in accuracy. And possibly shorter DB servicing time. At some tiers it takes 90+ seconds to launch, attack, and recover a Squadron to strike at a target approximately at BB + Spotter ranges away, with similar RNG and dispersion at 3x the 'reload time'! for Torpedo Planes that's reasonable considering damage potential, Fighters can move quick enough their turn around isn't as noticeable and if you've gained Air Dominance they're just manually controlled spotters. 

 

DB's don't 'need' an AP option. They just need to be more accurate, I'm not calling for a 3+ bomb hit + Fire every strike, they just shouldn't suffer from Max Range BB + Spotter levels of dispersion and RNG. Hell, the chances a BB Citadel's you at thier max range is more likely than getting hit by a single DB bomb from a 6-strong Squadron. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

From what I remember the 'Attack Run Circle' (dashed lines) for DBs is the same size as TBs. 

 

I'd trade less Alpha Damage AND %firechance for a substantial increase in accuracy. And possibly shorter DB servicing time. At some tiers it takes 90+ seconds to launch, attack, and recover a Squadron to strike at a target approximately at BB + Spotter ranges away, with similar RNG and dispersion at 3x the 'reload time'! for Torpedo Planes that's reasonable considering damage potential, Fighters can move quick enough their turn around isn't as noticeable and if you've gained Air Dominance they're just manually controlled spotters. 

I'd keep the fire chance, but I would trade A damage for accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,526 posts
3,480 battles

I'd keep the fire chance, but I would trade A damage for accuracy.

 

bombs dont do as much as torps do bear that in mind...and unfortunately USN's got A LOT of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

 

bombs dont do as much as torps do bear that in mind...and unfortunately USN's got A LOT of them

 

True, but USN has always relied on DoT for most of it's strike potential.

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.

×