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

CV Rework

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

Most players will agree that there's some problems with CVs at the moment. We don't necessarily agree on what those specific problems are, or rather the actual magnitude of any particular issue, but it's generally agreed that the class needs some attention. The developers at WG have responded with statements that a comprehensive CV overhaul is in the pipeline and will be laid out in a series of upcoming patches. This thread then is merely my own thoughts on the matter and what I would be looking into if I had creative control. As it's entirely my opinion divine truth, if you disagree then that's fine and is the whole point of a discussion thread you are wrong and have brought great shame to your family.

 

Here we go... Competent CVs have too much influence on matches. Any ship can have a big impact on the outcome of a battle when controlled by a skilled player, but CVs are in a different league altogether. They are so powerful that in the high tiers only one is allowed on each team and they must be mirrored. No other class is bound by such overt limitations. Even so, balance between teams is still elusive: in Random Battles, the team with a poor CV player is at a massive disadvantage when facing a competent one. The rest of the team has much more slack to pick up than if one of their CAs or BBs is a potato, for example.

 

But let's look at it another way. Let's say the "CV power" of a team is actually okay, and the real problem is that it's all concentrated in one specific player and one specific ship instead of being distributed among several players in several ships. The other classes already operate this way - having only one DD on your team is limiting; having 5 or more is a liability; having 3 or 4 works great. What if we could make CVs scale together in a similar way?

 

Having only one CV on your team would represent the bare minimum of useful airpower. Still somewhat potent in a very specific, limited role but lacking the versatility to be everything a team might usually expect. Having 3 or 4 CVs, however, would provide the current level of "CV power" and versatility and not leave all that responsibility in the hands of a single potato teammate.

 

There's lots of ways it could be achieved. The simplest would be to just reduce the number of squadrons available. 3 CVs controlling only 2 squadrons each doesn't sound too bad. Due to hanger loadouts, squadron size and individual plane stats would also have to be adjusted (say, double squadron size but halve damage output and hitpoints). Additionally, no double-ups: you pick two squadrons to control and they cannot be of the same type.

 

The implications would be significant. No more cross-drop torpedoes from a single player - instead you'd have to work with your fellow CVs (or other torpedo ships) to make it happen. Destroyers already operate with this limitation, why not CVs too?

 

No more air superiority loadouts. Want to control the skies? Well you'll only have one fighter at most so you'll be able to contribute to the air war but no one player can easily dominate it anymore.

 

There would likely be other balancing consequences to such a rework - ship anti-air potency would definitely require adjusting, for instance - but the main problem I see with it is: would CVs be fun to play with only 2 squadrons? I'm not sure but the benefits for overall gameplay could be great.

Edited by Unraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[BOTES]
Member
13 posts
4,286 battles

When you thought having a potato CV teammate vs a unicum CV enemy player is bad enough, now you get 4 potatoes CV teammates vs 4 unicum CV enemy players!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

That is the worst-case scenario and actually no different to how it is right now. Every other scenario, however, would be an improvement on our current system as far as team-balancing goes.

 

I'll elaborate a bit. In the early days high-tier CVs gained Defensive Fire, purely because CV sniping was so prevalent and the outcome so decisive. With 3 or 4 of these new CVs on each team, CV sniping would be of much less importance and maybe not even worthwhile at all. Lose one of your 4 CVs near the start of the match? Well, that's no good but not really any worse than losing a DD in a cap contest. It would no longer be an almost automatic defeat.

Edited by Unraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AUSNZ]
Member
420 posts
16,059 battles

but the main problem I see with it is: would CVs be fun to play with only 2 squadrons?

 

This point i would say wouldn't be fun as it would take too long between strikes to do anything useful, I am currently running a 111 Ranger and after my Torp/Bomb strike It can be a good 2min between my next action especially if my fighters have just been nuked. Reducing the groups even further would be a detriment to play as well as really over simplifying the CV gameplay to a state where anyone could play it fairly well without having to work for their skills.

 

No more air superiority loadouts

 

Nothing is less fun than going up against an AS CV being up-tiered to T9 then having massive AA on all enemy ships probably makes most players just want to exit to port and try again next round. As such i do truly believe the actual AS loadout on most CV does need to be reworked as it's not really a fun mechanic for teams or enemy CV's.

 

 

 

Here we go... Competent CVs have too much influence on matches. Any ship can have a big impact on the outcome of a battle when controlled by a skilled player, but CVs are in a different league altogether. They are so powerful that in the high tiers only one is allowed on each team and they must be mirrored.

 

Nothing less fun than having a 30% WR Taiho on your team while the enemy gets a 70% WR Taiho, in 90% of these games we already know the result including the Kraken the enemy CV will most likely get. Games like this show the utter lack of teamwork that we currently have in WOWS as AA ships won't provide AA cover for BB's, BB's will go off solo and be nuked and that silly TX DD has somehow not learnt that going full speed into the cap will only get him 3 torps squads deleting him from existence. This is my roundabout way of saying yes they have a massive influence often all out of proportion to any other ship class in the game and this level of performance can be reliably repeated game after game after game.

 

There's a few points i agree with you on and a couple i don't think would work out, but thanks for putting your thoughts out there 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,492 battles

I would say otherwise , take a look at this :

RmhhtMd.jpgSee the streak , do you know why i have that kind of streak ? Purely ridiculous AA power of division and stack of doom where every single damn ship on the list stick like glues to each other and open AA DF happily.

One game i shot down 73 planes and i lose

One game i get a kraken with 302 and still lose

You say that noob vs unicum cv is a problem i say not. The ridiculous AA power make it [Content Removed]proof and in those loses only twice i meet a CV player who outsmart me > still lose.

And there is the [Content Removed]ed difference between IJN cv and USN cv which is like day and night in their performance. No matter what a US CV can do , an IJN one will always have more influence on the match.

In the match i shoot down 73 planes that was against a top unicum clan and i am clearly not as good as them , it was the [Content Removed]ed Neptune AA that save his hide , not the CV because i cant fricken chase him far away.

The difference between CV cpt is very influencing on a tier 7 downward match , but it matters little from tier 9+ as most things up there  has no problem shooting you down and the stack of doom camp leave you with no chance to do a proper strike run

 

Insults/Derogatory Comments, Post Edited, User Sanctioned
~Ephys

 

Edited by Ephys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
341 posts
4,039 battles

I find that in their current state, CVs have a lot of influence. A double edged sword as while they can carry, having a potato or unicum CV on one team can drastically affect a match, with the CV being largely responsible for throwing/carrying the game and the latter utterly dominating the former, which feels a bit silly for either side, and that's my biggest problem with the class.

 

However, by no means am I against the CV's presence in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

This point i would say wouldn't be fun as it would take too long between strikes to do anything useful, I am currently running a 111 Ranger and after my Torp/Bomb strike It can be a good 2min between my next action especially if my fighters have just been nuked. Reducing the groups even further would be a detriment to play as well as really over simplifying the CV gameplay to a state where anyone could play it fairly well without having to work for their skills.

 

Yeah, some other stuff would have to be fiddled with to make it more interesting. Perhaps giving the player a more sophisticated level of control over the squadrons or something? Or perhaps make the positioning of the carrier vessel itself more important somehow? Making the planes travel faster and be less susceptible to AA would also improve things here, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,492 battles

I find that in their current state, CVs have a lot of influence. A double edged sword as while they can carry, having a potato or unicum CV on one team can drastically affect a match, with the CV being largely responsible for throwing/carrying the game and the latter utterly dominating the former, which feels a bit silly for either side, and that's my biggest problem with the class.

 

 

 

However, by no means am I against the CV's presence in the game. 

 

 

 

Yeah this is true only IF the CV is in an AA wagonband division where the other 2 is likely AA slave that will shave off his work and shoot down the other team plane as well as do the exploits that you create, Random teammates are too dumb to take up the oppertunity the CV provide

Now I have matches where i trash half their teams for 4 kills 150k damage , still lose

I have matches where i trash almost all of enemy air presence still lose

Why i lose ? I was alone fighting all enemy presence and the team do not know how to use the gap i create for them as well as the love for camping. I never play CV in a division and thats the result

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

However, by no means am I against the CV's presence in the game. 

 

Me either. I really like the potential CVs represent, both in a tactical sense and a teamwork sense. I'd like to see their role moved away from raw striking power (either versus ships or other planes) and more towards tasks that provide support for their teammates in normal ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,492 battles

Yeah, some other stuff would have to be fiddled with to make it more interesting. Perhaps giving the player a more sophisticated level of control over the squadrons or something? Or perhaps make the positioning of the carrier vessel itself more important somehow? Making the planes travel faster and be less susceptible to AA would also improve things here, I think.

 

 

CV right now is not fine because of the interaction between ships and planes. Heres the suggestion :

Make flying formation a thing and effect how the squad perform ( + something and - something )

Make AA different for the bow/stern and side

There should be an AA weariness gauge where if the squad spend too long loitering around , the gauge will completely fill and once that happen they start to lose combat performance ( worse accuracy , slower movement , take more damage ). AA accumulated will increase the gauge faster and planes from different nation has different gauge limit. AADF will double the rate at which the gauge will fill ( or more ) instead of major increase in DPS.

AA platform should have the longest AA range where other ship get less so they can fill the gauge over larger areas, Different AA weapons will have weariness value added on as another parameter

Allow shortcut to create group combinations

CV should get an active ability that temporarily boost their planes in some way and has very limited use ( like a one off ability ) to turn around certain situations.

FTs should be faster or near the speed of retreating strike planes ( right now even with +5% speed module , you wont catch a retreating squad unless you are right next to them)

Addition of a scout squadron , other squads got vision reduced. Scouts do what scouts must do and get a flare ability to reveal hidden enemy within a small area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

I'd also like to see stuff like this in chat:

 

"Hey, we need a couple of CVs on this flank."

 

Imagine having CVs that were very stealthy but were also required to be relatively close to the fleet to be effective. Our current CVs are essentially forced to operate as lone wolves hiding up the back of the map. And that role is already taken by BBs... *cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[BOTES]
Member
13 posts
4,286 battles

I only see two scenarios: More CVs per side and loadout change.

 

More CVs is never a thing. Put a poll asking whether people would like more CVs in a match and I am 100% sure majority would have voted 'no'.

 

There is already flexibility given three loadouts. If anything, have WG force one type of loadout. Either AS (not a single attack squadron) or strike (not a single fighter squadron). If CVs have only AS loadout, they can play their little merry game of shooting planes down without affecting the gameplay of 20-22 players, and if the players are decent enough they will help scout enemy boats. If CVs have only strike loadout, they can play their little merry game of farming damage the fastest.

 

Honestly you don't have to change anything about the mechanics of CV. The main problem is the Matchmaker, because it allows one-sided tryhard CV division.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

CV right now is not fine because of the interaction between ships and planes. Heres the suggestion :

Make flying formation a thing and effect how the squad perform ( + something and - something )

Make AA different for the bow/stern and side

There should be an AA weariness gauge where if the squad spend too long loitering around , the gauge will completely fill and once that happen they start to lose combat performance ( worse accuracy , slower movement , take more damage ). AA accumulated will increase the gauge faster and planes from different nation has different gauge limit. AADF will double the rate at which the gauge will fill ( or more ) instead of major increase in DPS.

AA platform should have the longest AA range where other ship get less so they can fill the gauge over larger areas, Different AA weapons will have weariness value added on as another parameter

Allow shortcut to create group combinations

CV should get an active ability that temporarily boost their planes in some way and has very limited use ( like a one off ability ) to turn around certain situations.

FTs should be faster or near the speed of retreating strike planes ( right now even with +5% speed module , you wont catch a retreating squad unless you are right next to them)

Addition of a scout squadron , other squads got vision reduced. Scouts do what scouts must do and get a flare ability to reveal hidden enemy within a small area

 

Some good ideas here, and with far fewer squadrons to take care of it wouldn't be too difficult for the average player to get a handle on. Being able to set a flying formation - could work just like the torpedo spread selector does - is very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,495 battles

I only see two scenarios: More CVs per side and loadout change.

 

More CVs is never a thing. Put a poll asking whether people would like more CVs in a match and I am 100% sure majority would have voted 'no'.

 

For sure, some significant changes would be required before the number of CVs per team could be opened up. In Beta it was higher (I don't think it was ever unrestricted, though) but the amount of plane squadrons flying around in high tiers was ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles

I think the two problems are:

- AS loadouts. Mirror number of fighter wings, balance is too hard outside that.

- No teamwork. As others said, no one plays as a team. The player base needs education and more rewards for AA defence. The problem is it isn't fun to AA so no one does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,034 battles

IMO there are a few glaring problems:

1. Laggy UI. This is fatal if it hits you at the wrong time (fighter combat/dropping)

 

2. Lack of flexibility with USN loadouts. Their aircraft take very long to prepare and due to ingame mechanics, IJN is far better at scouting and USN CVs also get spotted from the moon. 0-fighter loadouts = certain death in ASIA where fighter gameplay is more prevalent.

 

3. CV divisions. At high tiers (actually, even at T7 this is already a thing), a lot of the players div up with ships like Taiho Neptune Fletcher, etc and that stacks the MM like no other. You think having a unicum enemy CV is bad? See how you do if he brings 2 other unicums in AA spec ships (no AA powercreep my foot). Personally this last point is why I don't play high tier CVs much anymore (I play solo) since you just have that much bigger a chance of losing simply because of "who brought the better friends" instead of "who is the better CV player" when it comes to the air war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,569 battles

Personally this last point is why I don't play high tier CVs much anymore (I play solo) since you just have that much bigger a chance of losing simply because of "who brought the better friends" instead of "who is the better CV player" when it comes to the air war.

 

that's where you are wrong strat, AA dosnt take skill, and even a dumbass minotaur can still troll a CV if he just hides behind a island or smoke puff near a cap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,034 battles

 

that's where you are wrong strat, AA dosnt take skill, and even a dumbass minotaur can still troll a CV if he just hides behind a island or smoke puff near a cap

 

The difference is that said idiot is likely to get deleted and isnt divved up for the specific purpose of screwing over the enemy CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2,222 posts
13,737 battles

My thoughts on the biggest problems with CV at the moment.

 

1. Squadron drop/strafe circles are not properly defined. I think that as long as you commit to an action while the planes are outside the circle they should fly straight there and commit. Sometimes they will circle back before committing. This means the circle doesn't really define what it should. Also I have seen squadrons commit while outside the circle, this should not happen.

2. There are too many advanced hacks available to savvy players. With torpedoes and shells there are no advanced hacks, you press fire and they fire. With CV players can quickly reassign a command forcing behaviors that a single command would not allow. This not only favors those with advanced knowledge but also excludes certain possibilities from people who suffer a bad connection. These capabilities need to be removed.

 

I expect that just fixing the 2 points above would go a long way towards balancing CV play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
605 posts
6,779 battles

So the issues I see with CV's are;

  • The skill ceiling is too high for carriers, particularly at the higher tiers.  This means that the best players are massively better than others, not just a lot better.
  • The defensive AA mechanic is way too effective.
  • CV's are far too powerful and impactful on the game with their vision and spotting mechanics, and this particularly counters DD's, who are built around their stealth but have little ability to counter aircraft.

 

To fix these issues, I would propose the following;

  • Make all carriers of the same tier have the same number of squadrons.  I would propose tiers 4-6 get 3 sqns, 7-8 get 4 sqns, 9-10 get 5 sqns.  This lowers the skill ceiling significantly, because a big part of what makes very good CV players so much better is their ability to micromanage many squadrons of aircraft at once.  This reduces that advantage significantly, and lessens the impact a truly exceptional CV captain can have.  You would balance out having the same number of squadrons on all CV's from different nations by some having more aircraft per squadron but of a lesser quality.  Think Saipan vs Hiryu (although not that extreme).
  • Bombs and torpedoes should actually increase in damage with tier increases, this compensates for the lost squadrons and provides another tuning tool as well.
  • Defensive AA should still panic aircraft, but only provide a 50% modifier instead of the current 300% modifier. The main effect should be to impediment to accuracy, with only a moderate buff to AA strength.  Buff the AA on ships that use def AA to compensate.
  • Bring in a mechanic where AA increases in strength the longer aircraft are in AA range of a ship.  This discourages loitering (especially over DD's) and rewards quick strikes.  The increase could be 5% per second (or whatever is appropriately balanced), so after 20 seconds in AA range the AA power of the ship has doubled.
  • Change the spotting mechanics for CV's.  Fighters double as scouts and spot as they presently do.  DB's and TB's however no longer spot torpedoes and only spot ships for other CV's.  The ships spotted by DB's and TB's would come up on the minimap but not be visible to friendly surface ships.  This allows greater depth in gameplay for CV's that want to focus on winning the vision war (they can have more fighter sqns and spot for surface ships but have less potential to do damage themselves) or have less vision but focus on doing more damage.
  • Loadouts for CV's should be customisable.  That means you can pick whatever squadron loadout you like with the following restrictions: minimum 1 fighter sqn and max two torp bomber sqns, CV's with 4 or 5 total sqns would have minimum 1 DB sqn.  This means you can specialise the way you want to as a CV captain.

 

I think this provides a good solution to the current CV issues.  CV's would be less powerful but more fun to play, and it would create a better gaming experience for players of surface ships as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
98 posts
230 battles

So the issues I see with CV's are;

  • The skill ceiling is too high for carriers, particularly at the higher tiers.  This means that the best players are massively better than others, not just a lot better.
  • The defensive AA mechanic is way too effective.
  • CV's are far too powerful and impactful on the game with their vision and spotting mechanics, and this particularly counters DD's, who are built around their stealth but have little ability to counter aircraft.

 

To fix these issues, I would propose the following;

  • Make all carriers of the same tier have the same number of squadrons.  I would propose tiers 4-6 get 3 sqns, 7-8 get 4 sqns, 9-10 get 5 sqns.  This lowers the skill ceiling significantly, because a big part of what makes very good CV players so much better is their ability to micromanage many squadrons of aircraft at once.  This reduces that advantage significantly, and lessens the impact a truly exceptional CV captain can have.  You would balance out having the same number of squadrons on all CV's from different nations by some having more aircraft per squadron but of a lesser quality.  Think Saipan vs Hiryu (although not that extreme).
  • Bombs and torpedoes should actually increase in damage with tier increases, this compensates for the lost squadrons and provides another tuning tool as well.
  • Defensive AA should still panic aircraft, but only provide a 50% modifier instead of the current 300% modifier. The main effect should be to impediment to accuracy, with only a moderate buff to AA strength.  Buff the AA on ships that use def AA to compensate.
  • Bring in a mechanic where AA increases in strength the longer aircraft are in AA range of a ship.  This discourages loitering (especially over DD's) and rewards quick strikes.  The increase could be 5% per second (or whatever is appropriately balanced), so after 20 seconds in AA range the AA power of the ship has doubled.
  • Change the spotting mechanics for CV's.  Fighters double as scouts and spot as they presently do.  DB's and TB's however no longer spot torpedoes and only spot ships for other CV's.  The ships spotted by DB's and TB's would come up on the minimap but not be visible to friendly surface ships.  This allows greater depth in gameplay for CV's that want to focus on winning the vision war (they can have more fighter sqns and spot for surface ships but have less potential to do damage themselves) or have less vision but focus on doing more damage.
  • Loadouts for CV's should be customisable.  That means you can pick whatever squadron loadout you like with the following restrictions: minimum 1 fighter sqn and max two torp bomber sqns, CV's with 4 or 5 total sqns would have minimum 1 DB sqn.  This means you can specialise the way you want to as a CV captain.

 

I think this provides a good solution to the current CV issues.  CV's would be less powerful but more fun to play, and it would create a better gaming experience for players of surface ships as well.

I'm a new CV player but those are some nice suggestions you got there, but maybe for DB and TB make them to be able to spot ships but only at close range, as if people go for USN strike load out there's no fighters to scout for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles

@Moggytwo

Some good ideas but I disagree on a few points.

 

Never ever in any combo should USN have more Fighter wings than IJN. Simple reason is you get Zuiho v Bogue scenario where you can have 14 fighter units v 4...

 

So I would temper your idea with this:

- equalise the number of fighter wings tier-for-tier.

- make variation in loadouts DB:TB ratio, this would require some tweaking/buffs to DB and/or TB.

- In this situation maybe Torps have higher damage potential but are slower due to weight? I dunno there's a million ways to balance the two but IMO pure/heavy DBs or TBs should both be viable.

 

As for the skillshot stuff, I think it's fine, just transition the mode better up the tiers or have better tutorials on how to do it.

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,126 posts

every time I hit 'BATTLE'... I pray

please no CV, please no CV, please no CV

 

especially at high tier, 

true, at high tier CV are scarce, but if there's one, they'll be very competent one and scary as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×