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

Some Ways To Improve The Gameplay Now

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
22 posts

I wanted to write something after hearing two of my clanmates say that they've had enough of the CVs. I wrote before how I dislike T4 CVs and I still do, and gave up on it after literally a few games. So these solutions may not be the best due to not having first hand experience with higher tiers. Still, I hope somehow even as wishful thinking, that WG sees this and gives it a thought.

Re-enable some of the old controls

  • Although I think just reverting to pre-rework is better imo, I doubt it will ever be done. The next best thing is being able to waypoint both planes and ships and be able to switch controls using Z as before. That way, it's easier to control CVs during times like evading torps and fire. It doesn't happen always, but it is useful when it happens. Plus, it doesn't really make anything overpowered. And to maintain the current "attack" of the planes, make it same to waypoints of ships which are only for movement. And those planes will fly straight and not dodge AA.

Improve AA/Dmg Scaling

  • I've seen my posts regarding AA. Some complain it's too hard to dodge and melts planes too fast without even making people reach targets. Some complain how AA is useless and they still get swarmed and it discourages solo ships doing stealth flanking. So here's my take on it, scale it better (damage? Plane HP? I don't know). I noticed being uptiered by a CV made my AA useless. Meanwhile, being uptiered when I'm using a CV made my planes useless. So why not find a middle ground of damage? That's what PTS is for. For another, I'm quoting someone else's idea in here which is enabling captains to pick AA patterns, because the AI for AA is quite predictable according to some people (not me, I don't even see patterns lol). Yes, that adds more work to the captain, but it is completely optional and at least removes people blaming its predictability.

Fighter Squadrons

  • This imo, solves a lot of problems with the CV gameplay and might pacify the angry mob. What if instead of the deployable squadron around the other planes' flight path, a separate squadron is added? (Because spawning planes in the middle of the map is weird) How will it work? It basically is a RTS fighter that you can click to "escort" friendly ships but you can't manually shoot with it (like before rework). They remain automatic just like the other fighters. The difference is that, now, CV captains can actively defend their teams' capping DD. And the Fighters are allowed to deployed while other attack planes are being used (TB/DB/RP). Would it break anything? I don't think so aside from floodgating the CV spam. Only the fighters are allowed to be sent while you're using the other 3 squadrons, so no cross-drop and stuff and no complains from other ships. But doesn't that just make it more of a CV vs CV game? Well, let me ask you, do you prefer no one being able to defend you from the other team's CVs, or have your CV be able to do it? I prefer the latter.
  • Another factor which I think would be great is Fighter squadrons reduce Air Detection of enemy planes they are actively engaging. Take note active, so it will be balanced, as all things should. Imagine a CV captain escorting a DD that's about to cap. It's a no brainer to enemy team that some ship/s is capping. So they send some planes to that point. But OH SNAP! The capping ship is escorted. Would the pilots have time to spot while being busy dodging bullets? I don't think so. Would that make the DD happy? Yes. Would that make the DD feel that CV is a good teammate? Yes, probably. Would that make the enemy CV happy? No. Would that make the enemy team happy? I doubt it. Would it promote more cooperation with teammates? Yes, considering they know the CV got their back. Would it reveal info on where the escorted ship is? Doesn't capping already do it? The only con is if a CV is escorting a non-capping ship that is trying to stealth flank. Considering planes are spotted easier than the ships.
  • How will it be better than the current deployable fighters? Look at what happens now, usually it's a damage race between CVs. The others are sheeps ships waiting to be slaughtered. And with how some captains prefer to rack up damage instead of helping the team, that would make it worse. Given how long the 3 plane squads have to travel from A to B + occassional AA fire, some would prefer to not bother at all as it hampers their DPS. But if fighters can be controlled separately, it gives no reason to not help out the teammate in need.
  • Bonus! They can even make national flavors on them like let's say Japanese have numerous planes but lesser HP because kamikaze. And USN have lesser but tougher.

Non-instant repair for planes

  • This is more of a random idea. What if planes repair over time? It would lessen plane spam, wouldn't it? The repair time would be based on HP lost and would be lesser than the time to recover planes. But it has flaws, considering you are stuck to sending unrepaired planes if you are spammy, instead of freshly spawned planes from the auto recovery. The game will pick the highest HPs to fill the active squadron ofc and let the lowest HP ones repair at the hangar. I have no idea how this goes, but it seems nice. Realism isn't this game's forte after all.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
Beta Tester
859 posts
892 battles
  1. No
  2. Eh
  3. Eeeeh
  4. Smells of someone not playing CV. If your special and take too many losses it takes forever to get a wing back to full strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
372
[ZA]
[ZA]
Member
466 posts
10,711 battles

I think some of these ideas are pretty good, at least worthwhile to test in PTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,331
[TLS]
Member
4,833 posts
21,232 battles

As someone who played pre and plays post - stop making the system more confusingly complicated. As far as I gather, there were two issues with old cv: i) skill disparity and ii) lack of players (minor issue but related to (i)).

CV rework does not resolve issue i) in the long term; rather it seeks to cloak this issue by a) increasing the pool of players to dilute the effects and b) reset things to a "level playing field". Already from observations, issue i) is going to creep back in again, and especially with single CV matches in high tiers due to "complaints" (aka whining), skill disparity is going to creep in again and reestablish itself over time. Playing CV was and is a domain where the highly skilled dominates. I have always considered good CV players to be a rare valuable commodity that is difficulty to replace because of the learning curve. My response to skill disparity has and will always be to match CV sunlov1 against CV sunlov2 to achieve a proper matchup. Sunlov1 may not appreciate not being able to sealclub n00bcv but it is by far the fairest and more lasting solution. That is why I have, am and will push for the updating of MM to the current day situation. MM was built ages ago to cater for 2 nation lines. Now we have so many with varied parameters. It is a relic that was not built to handle this latest level of complexity.

As January 2019 draws further away, hopes for a reversion goes further away with it. All I can do now is learn, practice and play with the current tools given to me. It is like what early man faced: if you are hungry, go out and hunt. You always had the option of not going out and starving if you were afraid of hunting that big bad sabretooth tiger for dinner. I give you a fishing rod, go and fish and be satiated. You can always chose not to fish and starve.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
59 posts
2,006 battles
3 hours ago, Lupis said:
  1. No
  2. Eh
  3. Eeeeh
  4. Smells of someone not playing CV. If your special and take too many losses it takes forever to get a wing back to full strength.

If you cant give constructive feedback, maybe its better to not speak at all? What are your issues with the ops points ?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,193
Member
5,647 posts
9,433 battles
18 hours ago, Lupis said:
  1. No
  2. Eh
  3. Eeeeh
  4. Smells of someone not playing CV. If your special and take too many losses it takes forever to get a wing back to full strength.

Automated consumable use and being unable to control the CV directly when a squadron is in the air are two of the very dumb features of the CV rework. Of course they are not as dumb as turning fighters into consumable, because that is the dumbest ever.

 

18 hours ago, _S_H_I_N_I_G_A_M_I_ said:

Improve AA/Dmg Scaling

Not really? I just want AA to be as little RNG as possible, or just remove any randomness completely. Like constant damage within aura always hits instead of some stupid thing called "Hit Probability".

 

18 hours ago, _S_H_I_N_I_G_A_M_I_ said:

Fighter Squadrons

10000000000% needs to be changed. Fighters as consumables is the single DUMBEST idea I've ever seen/known in this game that actually went live. Everything about it is very dumb. I like what you suggested.

The last one... not really. Unnecessary IMO.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,378
[MRI]
Member
3,780 posts
16,731 battles
6 hours ago, _S_H_I_N_I_G_A_M_I_ said:

 Re-enable some of the old controls

Many people like myself have been asking for this since the start of the rework, even during the initial testing phasee.

WG's answer has been an unwavering no.

Oh and it is a balance issue apparently. At least that was WG's reply to Farazelleth some months ago. It is on Youtube if you are interested in WG's response.

6 hours ago, _S_H_I_N_I_G_A_M_I_ said:

Improve AA/Dmg Scaling

This is the biggest problem I have with the rework so far. WG needs to put this as their #1 priority.

6 hours ago, _S_H_I_N_I_G_A_M_I_ said:

Fighter Squadrons

I actually suggested something like this to WG back during the rework testing. Suffice to say it either went unnoticed or was ignored.

6 hours ago, _S_H_I_N_I_G_A_M_I_ said:

Non-instant repair for planes

This is an interesting idea. Warrants some testing imo  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
559
[LNA]
Member
2,092 posts
15,359 battles
1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

 

Not really? I just want AA to be as little RNG as possible, or just remove any randomness completely. Like constant damage within aura always hits instead of some stupid thing called "Hit Probability".

 

AA before the rework is non BS RNG. However , this create a simple problem : ship either have No fly zone / stupidly strong AA or none at all. It's all or nothing. A mino / Worc / Des Moines before rework is effectively a no fly zone FU to CV without needing to do anything but press a button. This is what relying solely on DPS calculation does.  A fishing division can use this with tier 8 CV div to effectively deny enemy of air support by using strong tier 10 AA ships. And tier 10 AA ships are god mode against tier 8 CV since there is no technique to get around them ( like slingshot ).

With introduction of flak  , weaker AA ships have a chance to down 1 or 2 planes if the flight squadrons circle them too much. It also create much more variation of AA ships. It is no longer just strong / mild or non existant. Some have ridiculously strong flak but weak DPS AA while others the other way around. 

1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

 

10000000000% needs to be changed. Fighters as consumables is the single DUMBEST idea I've ever seen/known in this game that actually went live. Everything about it is very dumb. I like what you suggested.

 

Fighter consumables i agree is dumb. Better off make it a normal squad that can be called with an ability when flying around with another strike squad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,193
Member
5,647 posts
9,433 battles
14 hours ago, legionary2099 said:

With introduction of flak  , weaker AA ships have a chance to down 1 or 2 planes if the flight squadrons circle them too much. It also create much more variation of AA ships. It is no longer just strong / mild or non existant. Some have ridiculously strong flak but weak DPS AA while others the other way around. 

Flak bubbles are putting up using RNG. It depends on the maneuvering skill of the CV player to avoid those flak bubbles.

The constant DPS should be, you know, constant and they should always deal damage to aircrafts. Their "hit probability" should always be 100%, esp. the smaller AA guns. "Chance to hit" for continuous AA DPS is just a layer of unnecessary calculations in the background, hogging everyone's computing power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
559
[LNA]
Member
2,092 posts
15,359 battles
9 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Flak bubbles are putting up using RNG. It depends on the maneuvering skill of the CV player to avoid those flak bubbles.

The constant DPS should be, you know, constant and they should always deal damage to aircrafts. Their "hit probability" should always be 100%, esp. the smaller AA guns. "Chance to hit" for continuous AA DPS is just a layer of unnecessary calculations in the background, hogging everyone's computing power.

WG games are unhackable because the server do all the necessary calculations and not the client ( us ) basically. So what you say is basically not correct. The server return the results back to us when given the feedback. This is why WG games is especially prone to lagging when connection is bad. Because it delay the server responses to input.

Flak do add a skill element to otherwise toned down CV play , so i don't see anything wrong there.

Probability of hit is in place probably to give CV enough time to drop a single strike at a ship. Some ship's AA is so strong that you can lost all flights during first approach ( it happen to me , lost all 6 in 1 shot , even when turning left and right ).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[SMOKE]
Member
2,468 posts
17,872 battles

I think the nerd on group up overlap AA bubble need to go ... surface ships do not enjoy damage reduction when they are caught in cross fire, as they choose to position themselves wrong, but planes got that !! .. now that really should not be there, planes entering overlap AA coverage within a group of ships choose to do so ( player control ) and should be penalized for that unwise positioning as well , and this will give back some sane AA to group up non AA ships by means of Area denial ( but planes can still choose to drop outside of optimal close range , thus lesson chance of getting a hit , just as surface ships can choose to fire even if in less than optimal angle hoping for a hit ) .. While current RNG is better than all or nothing , it do not reflect on actual outcome  cause the plane can sustain and still press on the attack .. surface ships AA should be able to play actual counter play .. counter play means if one is being attacked, one had means to fight back, repel, and if do it right and do it well, instead, kill the incoming .. right now none of that is .. ad the mechanism is there to provide means so planes can just swopp in and made the kill, as some other puts it in other thread, AA only constitute a deterrent , its then, not doing AA, making that group up AA bubble work actually give back some more active game play to the game as group up ships, of non AA build at least now had a chance to survive and work some defense

Part of that is about the targeting .. when viewed alone the sector control seems OK, on a 1 vs 1 scenario without any other factor that might be worth trying but even that is wrong considering how slow sector change for BB and cruiser are ( and its not like BB's AAA guns are actually that different than a DD, say they had basically the same 40mm Bofors, so why are DD switching so fast and BB so slow )

.. but of course this is rarely the case in actual game play, once spotted, surface ships can expect incoming from enemy surface ships, and CV also put out 2 or more squadron to focus fire / cross drop on surface targets, in the end the this side or that side approach yield nothing cause this targeting system target none and could not keep up with the aerial threat, turning all AA gun transverse a BB main gun grade .. the before rework specified target system actually work well and work OK ; and its making more sense now in this new plane threat( that are controlled by players ) situation.  Planes had capability to choose which target present the most danger, and which present the best chance of a hit and can choose to target, that same should be allowed to the surface player in a fight .. surface ships players should be allowed that same targeting choice, even when damage deal is still RNG , go back to the old Ctrl-Click or come up with something and definitely not this right now.

As spoken on other thread, the close / mid / long range is one of the big problem , it reflect in reverse how damage deal should be. The closer you get to the enemy the higher the accuracy both fire going to enemy and fire incoming from enemy, and this is reflected in planes drop and surface ship to surface ship combat ( talk to any soviet DD player with their 4KM torp and how to made them work ), but its reverse for surface AA, what non-sense , and the ranging , no Bofors 40mm do not stop functioning at 1.9KM ( horizontal distance, actual distance more since plane is up in the air ), 12.7mm machine guns do not stop functioning , not even at zero distance ; they are guns .. they should fellow the same logic as surface to surface guns do in this game , if WG want not to do all the calculation on ballistic pending so may guns and different guns and want to rely on RNG, there must then be an RNG co-efficient that put into the damage deal equation that based on distance from plane to surface ships, the closer they are the higher damage potential of the AA. then that also all AA guns should got its own ranging min/max and not just close / mid / long , so whatever enter the range are subjected to the said AA , not in the way it is now which force AA to not function at particular distance and offer even less damage as planes close in ; just as others puts it, AA dedicated ships should be that, they should be had a high chance of wiping the whole from air if the planes choose to swoppin .. try Akizuki / Kitakaze , they had 4X2 100mm and in real history these guns had elevation max of 90 degree and radar targeting , those 100mm function even down to zero distance and this should reflect on their purpose, intent, to be an AA biased DD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×