Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Otago_F111

An easy solution to the CV debate

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
161 posts
3,793 battles

When you go to the port and you choose your game type, the random would have 2 buttons. "Random with CV" and "Random no CV".

This would end all the debate, and would be chosen by the players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,282 posts
10,861 battles

I kinda find it funny when people are talking about CVs someone starts saying DDs are just as OP as CV.

I don't see a DD doing 300k damage in a game let alone 500k compared to CV. then there's enough radar to counter it where as CVs could stack planes with old rts and go through the strike and kill AA dedicated ships and delete them (we know what new reworked CVs are capable).

When it comes to DD what is really bothering you? the torpedoes? Well then stop being completely obvious of where you're heading and you'd dodge all the torpedoes. HE spam? then don't get caught in positions where you cannot aim at enemies and enemies can easily aim at you.

There's something called Minimap and Situational awareness if you don't know about these then you're someone who will obviously think DDs are too OP and have to be removed from the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
6 posts
2,273 battles
5 minutes ago, Aaditya_AJ said:

I kinda find it funny when people are talking about CVs someone starts saying DDs are just as OP as CV.

I don't see a DD doing 300k damage in a game let alone 500k compared to CV. then there's enough radar to counter it where as CVs could stack planes with old rts and go through the strike and kill AA dedicated ships and delete them (we know what new reworked CVs are capable).

When it comes to DD what is really bothering you? the torpedoes? Well then stop being completely obvious of where you're heading and you'd dodge all the torpedoes. HE spam? then don't get caught in positions where you cannot aim at enemies and enemies can easily aim at you.

There's something called Minimap and Situational awareness if you don't know about these then you're someone who will obviously think DDs are too OP and have to be removed from the game.

"have to be removed from the game" lol

I say we nerf DDs. If you can't use the minimap to see where the planes are and stay away from their line of sight and have already used all your coward smokes then you should be removed from the planet 😜

Seriously though, that 300 to 500k damage you're talking about are expert CV players, well practiced from testing, who luck out fighting a team of complete noobs as well as the rest of their own team performing uselessly.

I've never actually seen such a game myself irl. Today for eg, in t6/8 the highest I saw was 60k for a CV. On the other hand, almost every game ends with lone surviving DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
161 posts
3,793 battles
43 minutes ago, Groove_Champion said:

Sure, then all we need is "random with DD" and "random no DD"... etc I'm sure the playerbase is healthy and robust enough to handle that /s

hey why not, its would be YOUR choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
6 posts
2,273 battles
8 minutes ago, Otago_F111 said:

hey why not, its would be YOUR choice.

Because the game is already struggling to fill matches half the time. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if the playerbase could handle being split up but it obviously can't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
161 posts
3,793 battles
10 minutes ago, Groove_Champion said:

Because the game is already struggling to fill matches half the time. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if the playerbase could handle being split up but it obviously can't. 

Perhaps the player base might increase because people would play what they wanted to play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
734 posts
7,123 battles
1 hour ago, Groove_Champion said:

Sure, then all we need is "random with DD" and "random no DD"... etc I'm sure the playerbase is healthy and robust enough to handle that /s

Can we also have “Random with BB” or “Random without BB”?

I will happily take “Random with no more than 1 CV, 4 BBs, 3 DDs, the rest filled by CA/CL, no radar, domination mode only, and don’t you dare put me in bottom tier thank you” :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
722 posts
7,554 battles

Clearly this is actually a great opportunity for a "DD only" mode! 

Just 12 DD's a side, none of those annoying larger ships.  Torps, rapid fire guns, lots of maneuvering around objectives, outflanking, outpositioning your opponents, rapid plays, rapid deaths when mistakes are made - why would anyone want to play anything else!  :Smile_veryhappy:

Edited by Moggytwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
575 posts
15,730 battles

Game with humans and Game with no humans. Because other humans are the problem.

But seriously, if that was an option, then you have to cater for the other myriad of combinations, just like what is starting to happening and will continue on and on and on (ad infinitum) in this thread.

The simple answer to the problem is to get to the root of the actual problem which I have always perceived is "why is our team's (cv) player(s) useless?" to which the solution is to have games with no humans fix that perceived issue instead of beating around the bush with a myriad of other bandaid solutions that create more problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
253 posts
1,474 battles

There is nothing wrong with such game model.  that was exactly what happened in history. just that it took some 20 year to prove it with a real war.

The Battle of Jutland. Battleship centric gun battle.  Yamato was commissioned based on believing on the battleship dominant model

The Battle of Coral Sea+Midway. Air-Surface engagement. and reason Montana was cancelled.

They are just 2 type of game. it is not a random pick of one class of ship

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
575 posts
15,730 battles
4 minutes ago, tsuenwan said:

There is nothing wrong with such game model.  that was exactly what happened in history. just that it took some 20 year to prove it with a real war.

The Battle of Jutland. Battleship centric gun battle.  Yamato was commissioned based on believing on the battleship dominant model

I present the proposal for wows 0.9.0: warships rework, in the same vein as this so called cv rework to reflect the evolution of naval combat.

Remove BB. Remove CA/CL. Add submarines (people keep asking for them). We have now CV vs DD vs Sub. Sub kills CV. CV kills DD. DD kills sub. Balance in the Force(tm) achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
253 posts
1,474 battles
44 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I present the proposal for wows 0.9.0: warships rework, in the same vein as this so called cv rework to reflect the evolution of naval combat.

Remove BB. Remove CA/CL. Add submarines (people keep asking for them). We have now CV vs DD vs Sub. Sub kills CV. CV kills DD. DD kills sub. Balance in the Force(tm) achieved.

Actually, it would be fun to allow aircraft/ship to use cloud cover to hide or close in an air-surface combat model. much like island now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
129 posts
3,103 battles

There are no easy fixes to this because they are mucking around with the core context of the game. 

They are dramatically re-balancing power to and away from 1 ship class. 

Eventually people will get used to the new meta, as they were used to the old meta. The huge question for WG is how many people they lose, how many they gain as a result of the changes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
654 posts
7,559 battles
5 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Can we also have “Random with BB” or “Random without BB”?

I will happily take “Random with no more than 1 CV, 4 BBs, 3 DDs, the rest filled by CA/CL, no radar, domination mode only, and don’t you dare put me in bottom tier thank you” :cap_haloween:

This should be the ideal format or atleast it was prior to 0.8...except mayb the radar thing and CVs being rare. BBs are not bad for the team, it's the players who are playing them that usually have no idea what they are doing:Smile_veryhappy:

5 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Clearly this is actually a great opportunity for a "DD only" mode! 

Just 12 DD's a side, none of those annoying larger ships.  Torps, rapid fire guns, lots of maneuvering around objectives, outflanking, outpositioning your opponents, rapid plays, rapid deaths when mistakes are made - why would anyone want to play anything else!  :Smile_veryhappy:

Will undoubtedly be the best game ever... maybe increase the number of Caps to further localize the conflict areas

I wouldn't mind a few cruisers in the mix either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
253 posts
1,474 battles
1 hour ago, RalphTheTheatreCat said:

And all this would do is disadvantage the players that want to play CV's as well as slow down the queues for a game.

Not necessary, A CV centric game will not need to worry much about surface gun battles, where Aircraft can be much more powerful and operate in a much bigger maps. and new line of ships, equipment, comsumables and perks can be introduce to the game. 

Air power has been handicapped so much for the sake of squeezing CV into the current game-play. which also make far less appealing  to players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
322 posts
8,765 battles

probably a viable but not a logical and good choice ... instead I say limit 1 CV per team and revamp the spotting , real world spotting by air ( for that period ) do not yield gunnery or target resolution it should reflect that historical fact , just like Radar change it should only appear on the minimap and not visual to enemy surface ship unless of course that enemy already in visual acquiring and detection range, and like Radar the aerial spotting should had a counter ( 25 sec sounds just about right ) ... this is also more align with real aerial spotting of the day, this should exclude   ship borne spoter plane of course since its a dedicated consumable and like real world do only 1 thing , loiter and spot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
5 posts
10 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Game with humans and Game with no humans. Because other humans are the problem.

But seriously, if that was an option, then you have to cater for the other myriad of combinations, just like what is starting to happening and will continue on and on and on (ad infinitum) in this thread.

The simple answer to the problem is to get to the root of the actual problem which I have always perceived is "why is our team's (cv) player(s) useless?" to which the solution is to have games with no humans fix that perceived issue instead of beating around the bush with a myriad of other bandaid solutions that create more problems.

Uhhh, isn't that just Co-Op?  😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
575 posts
15,730 battles
4 minutes ago, ColFirefly said:

Uhhh, isn't that just Co-Op?  😛

No. I mean explicitly no other human players even in your team. Right now coop is mini-random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
734 posts
7,123 battles
3 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

No. I mean explicitly no other human players even in your team. Right now coop is mini-random.

There is training rooms for that. For the pure joy of smashing bots. But you cant earn credits or XP. WG probably figure that would be too easy to grind stuff then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×