Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'not a flame-war'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 1 result

  1. OK so I've been seeing so many remarks, comments, complaints, etc (Reddit, forums and otherwise). Most of them can be boiled down into 'CV OP', 'AA Broken', 'Delete CVs'. Even when there's constructive feedback on an issue it rarely addresses all the problems folks are raising or that are there. So in simple terms, IMO here's what's needed to fix the CV/AA and ship interaction issue with a few common remarks debunked. The main areas I'll go over: Where do we sit as of 0851 Common Inaccuracies Damage & XP Rewards CV:AA, The Tiering Issue CV:DD, Cause & Effect Where do we sit as of 0851? CVs can do well when top tier, T4 is fairly easy to get some damage numbers that are respectable, overall CV population at this tier is high. Otherwise, being top tier, CVs are ok and it's possible to get some decent numbers, bottom tier they are useless and mid-tier it's hit and miss. For the ships in battle, certain ships are far more likely to be punished and this contributes to the anecdotal evidence 'CV OP'. Outside DDs, this generally comes down to CV:AA balance ship-to-ship. For DDs concealment also plays a part. So: CV interaction with certain ships is poor. CV interaction with DDs is still an issue. CV interaction with uptiering/downtiering is obviously skewed. CV:AA is still all over the place. So as I mentioned above, CV:AA interaction needs to be fixed and CV:ship interaction needs to be fixed. Common Inaccuracies 'Plane speed is an issue' No it isn't. If the speed of planes was the issue, simply adjusting it's metric would fix the whole CV condition, it won't. They've tried to do this with an element of 'national flavour' to IJN CVs, it's barely noticeable. I notice the speed difference between IJN and RN but the biggest difference I notice between the two WRT actual combat performance is HP, not speed. If you nerfed plane speed you would need to increase something else to make up for DPM, which means alpha strike damage. This is the exact opposite of what the player-base would want. Alpha-strike is one of the most rage-inducing things in Warships, think Yamato deleting you at 25km or detonating... 'The ability to strike anywhere without being hit is the problem' This is a popular one, often championed by folks like Flamu. No your royal WeeGeeness this isn't the issue. To keep the gameplay engaging and fair there needs to be a risk-reward element. At the moment trust me, try being a bottom-tier CV and to strike anywhere at whim... Without mitigating plane-losses you will quickly notice you have no DPM because you only have 1-2 planes to launch per wing. And this is where there is a big issue that you notice when you are targeted in a flanker or DD by a CV, CV:AA interaction. 'Zero interaction CV:CV is the problem' Again a fallacy. It is possible to get a balanced game if you nail the CV:AA interaction to a balanced state without a proper plane:plane interaction being involved. One of the main reasons CV:CV interaction was all but removed was due to the CV skill disparity so drastically affecting matches. By removing it WG effectively reduced the potential impact of de-planing or alpha-striking the enemy CVs. 'Spotting power is an issue' Spotting is a factor in the CV issue but it isn't a major one outside DDs. Most ships outside BBs are spotted when you get to AA range which is often around the 5-7km mark. CVs get a bit of an early spot on enemy BBs comparative to DDs but usually this just confirms the classic clock-motion play that happens in most maps, just a bit earlier. This is actually enabling the match to get on with it earlier rather than later. Damage & XP Rewards Before I start with the CV specific stuff there's one global element in Warships that's a major contributing factor that making changes to would improve the immediate situation even if you ignored all the other changes I suggest. That is the ratios of XP Rewards to Damage over Spotting, Tanking and Assisted Damage (what I classify is damage on a target someone else is engaging). Basically XP rewards from Damage should be drastically reduced and rewards for Spotting and Tanking be boosted. It encourages types of gameplay for the team and that often lead to victory but are not really rewarded enough in game. Assisted Damage is an extra modifier I would add. Basically it'd be a small reward for focusing on an enemy your ally is focusing on or perhaps being focused by. It doesn't need to be too drastic but would reward team play. Overall (for CVs and DDs) spotting damage XP buffs would make these classes rewarded for being a team player instead of trying to farm damage. Tanking damage would reward kiting ships and BBs that soak potential damage for their teams as opposed to sniping and farming trash damage at range. (The epitome of trash damage is fire damage on ships with uber-heals, eg. Conqueror, RN CLs). Any damage that is healed, I would add to Tanking damage - this directly rewards players who frequently get Dreadnoughts but aren't rewarded for it. Basically make damage-farming for XP not useless but not the only way to top the boards aside from capping/defending ribbons. These XP changes I think should occur regardless of CV:AA changes. CV:AA, The Tiering Issue The biggest inconsistency with CVs and AA right through the game is when you are top tier or bottom tier. Generally speaking if you are top tier, you can strike most opponents with ease and if you are bottom tier you can barely strike any. This leads into issues like targeting only weak AA targets (ie DDs, see CV:DD, Cause & Effect further on). The easiest way to fix CV and AA balance in this condition is to flatten the curve. Basically this means reducing the AA damage difference tier to tier. When you do this you effectively allow a T6 CV to target all but the best T8 AA ships. To maintain balance you flatten plane HP as well. The at-tier difference between a T6 CV and a T6 ship remains relatively similar, however the difference between a T6 CV and a T8 ship is reduced. Yes it's a big thing to introduce but the CV Rework was a far more drastic change than what is essentially some numbers. So how do you differentiate CVs up/down tiers, simple. Do it with number of possible bombs/torps per drop and by number of aircraft per wing that they already do. A note here, IMO the AA would still be OP compared to CV possible damage output, personally I'd drop the overall damage per strike but make AA kill less planes but that's something you can fiddle with after you fix CV:AA tiering issues. The reason for my suggestion like this is that you reduce the damage suffered difference between 0 AA ships and uber AA ships but it's a fine line to tread. But this point isn't part of my thread, it's just a personal footnote idea. CV:DD, Cause & Effect Out of all interactions in the game, the CV:DD one is the worst. DDs get caps, win games and have huge damage potentials because of how crucial this role is, they are natural targets for CVs and so there's a fine line between the two. The two issues with the CV:DD interaction is that the CV can spot/do damage to the DD without the DD being able to do much. This issue applies to some flanker ships as well and my solution will cover this as well. The first thing I've noticed in the more recent updates is that certain DDs I can't spot-then-attack with rocket planes. What I mean by this is spot them then start my attack run immediately, I actually need to make a second pass. For many of these interactions, this is almost in a good place. For DDs I'd suggest buffing their Air-Detected range a bit more and for flankers with poor AA, do the same. This way, CVs would be able to do damage to DDs most of the time but gives the DDs a bit more wiggle room for skill. As I said earlier it's almost there, I miss my rocket runs sometimes, a swing a bit more towards the DD would be good. Basically make it so DDs and flankers keep their AA off until they are spotted. The trick is balancing the air detectability with the various ship AA ratings, ie you don't want a Mino suddenly being like 'bye bye planes' and have no chance for the CV to even get a plane or two out. The effects of all these changes would be to make DDs far more viable and make them hard enough to strike that it's almost worth pulling out a different wing of aircraft and going after something else. With changes to XP rewards, CVs would be rewarded for spotting and not farming damage, which is currently an issue but more than that there would be a choice involved to keep trying to strike a ship and make successive passes or take the plane losses and let the team deal with DD/flanker. Conclusion Overall the current CV:AA system is still borked, not to mention DD issues and XP issues. Some games CVs enable teams to win by spotting targets or striking a weak outlier to get those urgently needed points but only to rank bottom 3 in XP. Other games CVs farm damage and due to doing so to 'save a star' or for stats, they lose but top XP and think to themselves 'yeah but I topped'. Too many games CVs are useless and have no ability to not be so. No matter how many T10s are in a match, I can have a decent game in my Amagi, Atago, CM or Rich or just about any T8 CA/BB as long as I can get some AA cover from allies where needed. In my Shokaku or Implac, I have no such luck, there are legit games where I can annoy/strike the lone DD and that's about it. After that I spot but I'm essentially resigned to being bottom of the XP board. At the same time you can be top-tier in a CV and laugh at all the ships you can easily strike. The changes I suggest above would address all that. NB: Obviously the actual numbers would need to be refined but as long as you set some sort of success conditions you can always adjust towards success. It really does feel like WGs measures of success are far too generic and need to be more specific down to ship, plane and torpedo. I hope you enjoyed this.