Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Max_Battle

Fear of Aircraft Carriers should encourage TEAMplay.

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
668 posts
8,348 battles

I know, I know. I said a dirty word - "Teamplay". I'm sorry.

When I first started playing World of Warships in the beta before the last wipe, I made a decision to get into Cruisers and Aircraft Carriers.

I wanted to learn how to use Carriers AND how to counter them.

This seemed like a fun thing to me. It felt like a little personally assigned mission.

When I first started, it was just before a CV nerf. I don't know if/how many others there had been because though I bought into the beta, I am aware there had been a lot of player testing before that.

Anyway, when I first started, as a CV player, if I caught a ship alone it was in trouble. Even auto torping was effective if I dropped from either side of the ship.

I watched other people playing and asked some questions and was just beginning to have some success with alt-torping as the first CV nerf hit. (Well first one I experienced).

Since then, there have been many alterations to CVs in various ways.

But my comment is this - even when an average to good CV player could be devastating - isn't this ok?

I'm stating the obvious, but a CV has vulnerabilities - a CV protected by a good team less so - and this is also my point.

A Battleship escorted by a couple of AA cruisers has (or should have) much less to fear from aircraft.

But how many times do you play a BB and see a Cruiser nestle in beside you, wrap a comforting AA arm around you and say, "don't worry Brother, I've got your back"?

It's cool when it happens and I like to do it because it makes sense.

But when people run off to deathmatch and get punished for it, they blame CVs for being too powerful instead of understanding a simple fact....
 

Yes, it is a game, but the military philosophy is based on real world ships.

Ships have roles.

People who play roles together and overlap their skills instead of charging off on their own should be rewarded.

There are plenty of deathmatch games out there. This seems like a team game to me. I think the teamplay should be encouraged. Fear of death and failure encourages cooperation.


 

TL:DR - Carriers should be dangerous. Planes should be dangerous. This will force people to play in a mutually protective style instead of deathmatching.

 

I apologise again for using the "t" word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

The maps are so restrictive it's nigh impossible to sail in a formation even if you want to.

 

The comms tools are primitive, and there are many segments of the server that can't communicate even if they want to (no common language).

 

The reward system is skewed towards two things: doing damage and capping (when the latter is available). People will play to one or the other because that's what the game tells them to do through its rewards.

 

We tossed around all sorts of ideas for this, such as giving CVs more exp if they shot down planes that were attacking friendlies, or give more to CAs that use their AA ability when within 'x' km of a friendly being attacked, and so on.

 

We have no evidence WG is going to do anything with the reward system beyond the crudest terms. Until they do, thinking people will magically behave that way is delusional.

 

Regardless, if you design a class and give it the means to attack anywhere on the map whenever it chooses AND have it demand several other players band together to hope to minimise its impact, that would seem on its face to be designed OP-ness.

 

To put it differently, were you to take any OTHER class and give it those characteristics what do you think people might say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Member
116 posts
12,417 battles

The maps are so restrictive it's nigh impossible to sail in a formation even if you want to.

 

The comms tools are primitive, and there are many segments of the server that can't communicate even if they want to (no common language).

 

The reward system is skewed towards two things: doing damage and capping (when the latter is available). People will play to one or the other because that's what the game tells them to do through its rewards.

 

We tossed around all sorts of ideas for this, such as giving CVs more exp if they shot down planes that were attacking friendlies, or give more to CAs that use their AA ability when within 'x' km of a friendly being attacked, and so on.

 

We have no evidence WG is going to do anything with the reward system beyond the crudest terms. Until they do, thinking people will magically behave that way is delusional.

 

Regardless, if you design a class and give it the means to attack anywhere on the map whenever it chooses AND have it demand several other players band together to hope to minimise its impact, that would seem on its face to be designed OP-ness.

 

To put it differently, were you to take any OTHER class and give it those characteristics what do you think people might say?

 

That sounds awfully like a battleship when you're in a cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
459 posts
8,261 battles

I think the CVs got nerfed because they pwned the lower tiers too easily, and because the AA isn't so strong there even team work isn't completely effective. I dunno what the solution is, but they need to be in the game to represent aircraft in the naval arena. We know they were important and that they were effectively OP in real life, you can't ignore that. The trick will be in how they buff them again without making them OP and getting players to enjoy playing again.

 

I think the improvements to strafing may have gone a little way towards this, it allows for a bit more skill and strategy when deploying fighters.

 

Something iChase suggested sounds interesting to me, ie: having a better representation of AA for ships. As it stands all AA guns can fire in all directions, but they really should only fire in a limited arc. The way to do this in code would be to have the aura change strength depending on where around the ship it is (pre-calculated based on gun arcs), inevitably leading to strong and weak areas in AA defence. Ships would have to work together to cover each others weak areas (even cruisers). The AA guns would have to be buffed to maintain effectiveness, but carriers who manage to make the approach correctly would lose fewer planes. Notably most ships have the strongest AA on the broadside, meaning that torpedo bombing would be trickier, but a dive bombing run may work out easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,033 posts
1,487 battles

Reposted on the NA Forums http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/55598-usn-fighters-vs-ijn-fighters-a-detailed-statistical-analysis/

Reposted on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/3qa0zx/world_of_mathships_ijn_vs_usn_fighter_analysis/

 

Q&A from both:

  • Does AA Mechanics on Ships work the same way?

Yes. Ship AA works the same way. Ships have 3 types of AA Aura's

​Long Range AA: 88mm, 127mm etc. etc.

Medium Range AA: 40mm Bofors, 55mm Gerat etc. etc.

Close Range AA: 12.7mm Brownings, 25mm AA, 20mm Oerlikons

These 3 AA Auras are Cumulative, so the 3 different DPS will combine to form the total DPS to be used in the formula

TOTAL DPS / SURVIVABILITY = (X)*100%/sec

Multiple ships do not accumulate, rather their own separate rolls are made.

 

  • Can two planes (or more) be shot down at the same time?

Yes. Although the chances are very low and we did not include this in the original thread as the it would complicate things. But if you are interested, the chances for example of 2 Hosho Squads shooting down 2 Langley fighters at the same time are 0.147∩0.147 = 2%

 

Shooting down planes is still RNG. Even if you upped the damage a little, it's not like the percentage will increase a whole lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

That sounds awfully like a battleship when you're in a cruiser.

 

Indeed, but not a BB when you're in a DD. In fact it sounds like a CA when you're in a DD.

 

In each of those cases, however, the CA or DD can use their mobility and/or concealment as partial counters to their threat. Hell, they can simply run away (how many BBs are faster than CAs?).  And, of course, every other class must expose themselves to counter fire/risk.

 

How do you do that to planes once they've located you? And what risk must the CV face?

 

No, they aren't at all comparable, and that's why WG is having a terrible time balancing them (and probably will continue to do so).

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
802 posts
2,945 battles

WG have tried many many ideas to get teamwork to be a "thing" in their games of teams of 12-15 (WoT and WoWS, WoWP), however I think they need to abandon this idea, because after 5 years, it hasn't worked.

 

Also the communication is an issue, for to have accurate and coordinated teamwork, players need to be able to type comms to each other, in battle chat.

 

That's communication 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×