Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

What's actually wrong with CVs

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,277
[151ST]
Member
2,353 posts
9,873 battles

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.

Edited by S4pp3R
Grammar stuff 3
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles

I like your sensible approach to the problem. My take on "why dds get bullied" is slightly different, but you will realise it is common sense as dds are 1) soft 2) easy 3) crunchy 4) nearby 5) lone targets that retaliate poorly as opposed to the big hulking targets that are protected by layers of AA. Like you implied, the rewards scheme needs a big overhaul (I would name it XP REWORK FOR 0.9.0 in the cynical vein of 0.8.0). My position is that the R-P-S system should be applied and that CVs should be discouraged from hitting dds; rather they should be rewarded for hitting bigger (but risker targets).

AA is borked now because they threw out the baby with the bathwater and now have to start things from scratch again. Expect no stability until at least end of the year. Your myths and reality section is spot on. Except that only people that play CVs recognise it and the non-cv players masses believe otherwise like supersitious medieval religious zealots.

The other thing is that skill disparity is starting to creep back into the cv. Yes, rework did level the playing field at the start, but to acheive that level of multitasking and fine control needed now (previously was just pure multitasking) requires rounds of practice which I am just getting the feel of. The CV player that can conserve their planes and manage their runs efficiently will always have the upper edge. It is no different to the other ships classes where practice makes perfect.

Otherwise, most of what you put forward is quite sensible.

Edited by dejiko_nyo
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,001
[CLAY]
Member
2,665 posts
12,012 battles

Damn. That’s detailed. I was going to give a joke reply when I saw the title. But now I’ll actually have to read the whole thing and write an appropriate response. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[151ST]
Member
2,353 posts
9,873 battles
1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I like your sensible approach to the problem. My take on "why dds get bullied" is slightly different, but you will realise it is common sense as dds are 1) soft 2) easy 3) crunchy 4) nearby 5) lone targets that retaliate poorly as opposed to the big hulking targets that are protected by layers of AA. Like you implied, the rewards scheme needs a big overhaul (I would name it XP REWORK FOR 0.9.0 in the cynical vein of 0.8.0). My position is that the R-P-S system should be applied and that CVs should be discouraged from hitting dds; rather they should be rewarded for hitting bigger (but risker targets).

AA is borked now because they threw out the baby with the bathwater and now have to start things from scratch again. Expect no stability until at least end of the year. Your myths and reality section is spot on. Except that only people that play CVs recognise it and the non-cv players masses believe otherwise like supersitious medieval religious zealots.

The other thing is that skill disparity is starting to creep back into the cv. Yes, rework did level the playing field at the start, but to acheive that level of multitasking and fine control needed now (previously was just pure multitasking) requires rounds of practice which I am just getting the feel of. The CV player that can conserve their planes and manage their runs efficiently will always have the upper edge. It is no different to the other ships classes where practice makes perfect.

Otherwise, most of what you put forward is quite sensible.

Thanks and agreed...

Although I think if you did the DD and AA/plane balance well enough you probably wouldn't need an incentive.

 

9 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Damn. That’s detailed. I was going to give a joke reply when I saw the title. But now I’ll actually have to read the whole thing and write an appropriate response. 

Thanks there are a few mistakes here and there but it mostly gets my points across... (I had to adjust a few cause they were blatant, I had 'ship HP' instead of 'plane HP')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,899
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,331 posts
26,048 battles

as a CV main former, i do agree with some points, but not all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles
2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Although I think if you did the DD and AA/plane balance well enough you probably wouldn't need an incentive.

Problem is that dds are the weakest in terms of firepower and just simply beefing up their power will raise the issue of "how come firepower doesn't scale with size".

Much have I pondered about the balance of the game and its economics and how to improve on it. Short of ripping everything up and redoing it (like CV rework), the little tweaks here and there aren't going to be useful in the long run. The ship class roles need to be clearly defined as low damage output + low health will always be at a serious disadvantage. That is why dd gunboats have a serious advantage over torpedoboats.

To clearly illustrate, take the artillery piece from any C&C game (or *craft equivalent). Long range, high damage output but in return, slow, poor health, easily destroyed (air units are particularly good) if left on its own. The mammoth tank: slow, big guns, big health pool, can kick air ass but AP rockets kill it. In certain ship games, the mammoth tank equivalent takes the long range, high damage output advantages of the artillery and pairs it with the big guns, big health pool AND antiair of a mammoth tank. Most of the advantages, little of the weaknesses. This is because the original (ship) design it was derived from was NEVER meant to be balanced. Military philosophy dictates that you put the biggest, baddest things you have in the biggest, baddest things you can use to protect it. Where balancing comes into it is because "we want it to be fun". War is not fun. Balance is an artificial construct made to ensure playability. Some games use mechanics such as limited availability to ensure these "superunits" are not produced enmass. That is why we have population caps and slots. A big unit is worth much more than a small weak unit. Right now, the only effort to achieve this are in the clan battles mechanics. Limited 1BB/1CV. Otherwise it would be a free for all like in ranked. My 3 ranked matches, apart from me as CV, everyone was a BB with only 1 CA/DD taking up the last slot. Fair? No. Expected? Yes.

But in the end, do sane, clearly thought out suggestions to even things out get listened to? No. Only the loud, crappy and reactive noise do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
Member
541 posts
6,731 battles

@dejiko_nyo I'm going to answer 2 of the points you made, they are in quotes below:

Quote

That is why we have population caps and slots

Speaking of RTS games, one of my favorites (C&C Generals) was notable because of it's total lack of this mechanic. There were also a bunch of game-breakers right then and there (which is ironic because lead designer Dustin Browder later went on and made Starcraft II, which is famed for it's intricately balanced gameplay in multiplayer.

Quote

But in the end, do sane, clearly thought out suggestions to even things out get listened to? No. Only the loud, crappy and reactive noise do.

sadly. The sane voices in the rework get drowned out by people who are more interested in getting their every complaint listened to, regardless of whether they're actually sound complaints or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles
16 minutes ago, TD1 said:

Speaking of RTS games, one of my favorites (C&C Generals) was notable because of it's total lack of this mechanic. There were also a bunch of game-breakers right then and there (which is ironic because lead designer Dustin Browder later went on and made Starcraft II, which is famed for it's intricately balanced gameplay in multiplayer.

Yes, I like the total lack pop slots and caps in generals. Which leads to unit spam rushes. But this lack of mechanic was balanced by the unit designs. GLA tanks would get their asses handed to them by China and US which inturn were more resource heavy. But you get the gist. Here we are talking about a "naval simulator" that has its balance mechanics rooted in other equally ambiguious mechanics to achieve its balance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29
[1AN-C]
Member
56 posts
3,096 battles

Excellent summation of the current state of the game. OP is to be commended for the time and effort put into this thought provoking post.

I agree 100% that the reward system is currently broken; topping the scoreboard bears little relation to winning the game. Why WeeGee can't see this is beyond me, it's obvious to a blind man.

As to the myths section, unfortunately the small minded have more room in their heads for a big mouth.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[151ST]
Member
2,353 posts
9,873 battles
4 hours ago, TD1 said:

@dejiko_nyo I'm going to answer 2 of the points you made, they are in quotes below:

Speaking of RTS games, one of my favorites (C&C Generals) was notable because of it's total lack of this mechanic. There were also a bunch of game-breakers right then and there (which is ironic because lead designer Dustin Browder later went on and made Starcraft II, which is famed for it's intricately balanced gameplay in multiplayer.

sadly. The sane voices in the rework get drowned out by people who are more interested in getting their every complaint listened to, regardless of whether they're actually sound complaints or not.

 

3 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Yes, I like the total lack pop slots and caps in generals. Which leads to unit spam rushes. But this lack of mechanic was balanced by the unit designs. GLA tanks would get their asses handed to them by China and US which inturn were more resource heavy. But you get the gist. Here we are talking about a "naval simulator" that has its balance mechanics rooted in other equally ambiguious mechanics to achieve its balance.

The RTS comparison I think is a little moot for warships...

World of Warships is an arcade game with some basic starting statistics rooted in a simplified sim system. Balance in the game is provided by arcade elements and dev choices however. This is why I don't think RTS systems referenced have much relevance.

3 hours ago, Blast_Radius1 said:

Excellent summation of the current state of the game. OP is to be commended for the time and effort put into this thought provoking post.

I agree 100% that the reward system is currently broken; topping the scoreboard bears little relation to winning the game. Why WeeGee can't see this is beyond me, it's obvious to a blind man.

As to the myths section, unfortunately the small minded have more room in their heads for a big mouth.

Thankyou! And a big shoutout to everyone who has been reasonable in this thread, it's refreshing and it's also nice to see that when I do these big analytical or proposed ship line threads that folks engage. It seriously makes it worth it!

Yeah I'm thoroughly sick of folks jumping on the hate train without actually approaching the issues with an open mind and a view to fix them.

I understand the hate for CVs, I really do. Particularly from DD players. But outside DDs and Flankers, CVs aren't OP, if anything they're in need of balancing in a smart and thoughtful way (as opposed to 'increased damage of ___').

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[151ST]
Member
2,353 posts
9,873 battles
3 hours ago, drakon233 said:

as a CV main former, i do agree with some points, but not all

Which ones do you disagree with and why o glorious drakonation? (For old times sake, couldn't help myself)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[MRI]
Member
3,446 posts
14,846 battles

Great post OP. 

I have been complaining for a long time now about the AA tiering issue but it seems that WG has no intention of doing anything on that front. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[151ST]
Member
2,353 posts
9,873 battles
26 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Great post OP. 

I have been complaining for a long time now about the AA tiering issue but it seems that WG has no intention of doing anything on that front. 

Yeah same, out of all the fixes I've raised to said issues I have been advocating this type of a solution for a long time... Even pre rework...

If they aren't going to implement +/-1 on general (they won't) then this is the easiest way to address the CV tiering problem.

The irony is I'm not a CV main, I'm a flanker main (particularly in CB), yet even I can see the issues on both sides.

We know WG are stubborn when it comes to community feedback (yes I'm being nice with that remark) but I can't sit back and say nothing.

At least by theorycrafting something there's a tiny tiny chance they'll see it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles

If not RTS, then more of FPS, like TF/OW/etc2. Your tankier builds have significant weaknesses to compensate for their advantages. Snipers have their range and accuracy balanced by their poor health and close combat vulnerabilities. Even arcade shooters have strengths mitigated by a counter. Whether it is RTS or FPS or arcade shooter or 4X or RPG, there is an inherent balance system must be present. This system is unique to a game. Right now, this "simplified naval simulator" does not have its balancing in a logical manner either by design or oversight. Right now, the only clarity I see in the balance system is "throw everything into the blender and hope that everything averages out in a statistics spreadsheet" easy way of dealing with things. 

If I were designing CV according the logic rules that wg has been showing, that CV would be wiping the floor off all the surface ship classes with impunity. Extreme impunity and prejudice as per real life counterpart. DDs would be practically undetectable until 2km where they would have already unloaded all their 1 salvo of torpedoes. For reasons of "entertainment" all these things have been "balanced" in order to make it "enjoyable" to play. 

Now I wouldn't mind if CVs could do a devastating strike to a ship AND lose all planes for the effort (high risk, high rewards - sounds like old system) but the new system makes it very frustrating to play cv, ie, poor strike and lose all planes for the effort. I've watched a few of the uniscum replays and noticed how they play and it is no surprise that they play that way because of how mechanics are balanced at that point in time.

But yes @S4pp3R, discourse is much more civilized when people don't start screaming bloody murder (or the equivalent thereof). What all of us agree is that there is a lot of work that needs to be done to tune the issues.

16 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Great post OP. 

I have been complaining for a long time now about the AA tiering issue but it seems that WG has no intention of doing anything on that front. 

We are getting old, jaded and cynical. No surprise. To me it would be a surprise if wg listened to the sane comments and did "Rewards Rework 0.9.0" but realistic me doubts it given what they appear to be doing.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
666
[SMOKE]
Member
1,831 posts
15,649 battles

Actually this late change is IMHO in the right direction but poorly and wrongly implemented .. instead of turning the AA to do its intended job to defend and repel aerial attack, now it turns it into damage farming for high tier BB and CA ( and all specialist AA build ) ; so it end up too strong for them and yet even poorer AA for all other surface ships  ( sorry the attack run will get immunity cause all the guns too busy shooting at those planes circling outside )

And speaking of DD, the simple fact is this is a game and each and every ship, ship class , ship type should be allowed the same possibility ( and simplicity if that's so ) to perform and perform well if played so .. BB are allowed that, CA are allowed that, CL are allowed that with some hurdles, CV, with the rework re allowed that .. DD on the other hand since 0.5 back had keep being nerfed, nerfed, and nerfed that with current meta they are denied this same ... and CV vs AA is the one thing tha push everything over the edge unfortunately .. I am all for the CV being viable in game but also I am all for DD  being equally viable and this is quite clearly not

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles
1 minute ago, S4pp3R said:

The irony is I'm not a CV main, I'm a flanker main (particularly in CB), yet even I can see the issues on both sides.

Same here. Plays CVs for fun and learning purposes but prefers to be in faster and more nimble ships. When you go out alone into the middle of nowhere without support, you can't blame the cv because you should know they will pick on lone, easy, crunchy, delicious targets.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles

To make DDs viable, the roles for the classes and their strengths and weaknesses against other classes needs to be clearly defined. I've mentioned it above. This will be quite drastic, but a way out is how many ships of a class are put into battle. Eg, out of 14 ships, maximum 3 BBs (2+1 with a CV), 4/5 cruisers, rest destroyers. Destroyers are in effect the cheap foot soldiers that should be doing zerg rushes. Right now, there are too many bigger ships that can bully them. Oh wait, won't get implemented because of "waiting queues". See, I already gave typical expected response. 😛 But seriously, this lame "waiting times" issues has got to stop. It is like their catch all answer for things they do not want to listen to.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
666
[SMOKE]
Member
1,831 posts
15,649 battles
1 minute ago, dejiko_nyo said:

To make DDs viable, the roles for the classes and their strengths and weaknesses against other classes needs to be clearly defined. I've mentioned it above. This will be quite drastic, but a way out is how many ships of a class are put into battle. Eg, out of 14 ships, maximum 3 BBs (2+1 with a CV), 4/5 cruisers, rest destroyers. Destroyers are in effect the cheap foot soldiers that should be doing zerg rushes. Right now, there are too many bigger ships that can bully them. Oh wait, won't get implemented because of "waiting queues". See, I already gave typical expected response. 😛 But seriously, this lame "waiting times" issues has got to stop. It is like their catch all answer for things they do not want to listen to.

and not just defined, but the must be given the specification, the weapon, and the ability to carried out those mission and in the game restriction thus imposed , and rewarded for doing so, right now all of these are questionable at best and downright not there for many ; in the end the reward system is the one that should be getting a total refurbish , so long the system reward only damage deal, not actual fighting and team goals then the situation will persist no matter what since players will  insist on snipe and damage and avoid any incoming at all cost ( including their teammate's life and a defeat )

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[151ST]
Member
2,353 posts
9,873 battles
1 minute ago, Mechfori said:

and not just defined, but the must be given the specification, the weapon, and the ability to carried out those mission and in the game restriction thus imposed , and rewarded for doing so, right now all of these are questionable at best and downright not there for many ; in the end the reward system is the one that should be getting a total refurbish , so long the system reward only damage deal, not actual fighting and team goals then the situation will persist no matter what since players will  insist on snipe and damage and avoid any incoming at all cost ( including their teammate's life and a defeat )

And you've understood my XP suggestions completely...

So much about role and playstyle can be perhaps not fixed but at least amended correctly with a better XP system geared away from damage.

When you reward good role behaviour you will mould that role in the right direction and you can make adjustments in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,570
[TLS]
Member
3,935 posts
19,987 battles
5 minutes ago, Mechfori said:

and not just defined, but the must be given the specification, the weapon, and the ability to carried out those mission and in the game restriction thus imposed , and rewarded for doing so, right now all of these are questionable at best and downright not there for many ; in the end the reward system is the one that should be getting a total refurbish , so long the system reward only damage deal, not actual fighting and team goals then the situation will persist no matter what since players will  insist on snipe and damage and avoid any incoming at all cost ( including their teammate's life and a defeat )

Yes, there is a lot of core mechanics that need reworking but what can I say? Pala already mentioned in another "get your priorities right" thread. Instead of important game mechanics, we get new modes/content/ships/blah for a game still effectively in beta. To use KSP as an example, it is like the orbital mechanics in the game is still broken before 1.0 is released but you are more concentrated on releasing DLCs.

I think what we can safely say all of us that are having this civil discourse regardless of affiliation/bias is that there are a lot of things that need to be fixed as a priority rather than the content addition.

Edited by dejiko_nyo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,321
Member
4,516 posts
8,621 battles

First of all,
"air detection" and "surface detection" as mechanics is like all them "resistances" in many RPGs. They are different in names only, adding complexity without any meaningful depth. "Air detection" is just "surface detection" in a different name. In short, it sucks as a mechanic.
Can you just make like "thresholds", if aircrafts get inside 40-50% of a ship "detection" radius will be spotted only on that team's minimap, within 20-25% the ship will be truly spotted. Just a suggestion. Cannot make a good argument to problems without presenting some solutions.

 

Second,
bottom-tier CVs vs top-tier AA in a match: a more and longer-existing disparity exists as well, aka the power difference between a ship and a ship 2 tiers higher. 
WG: "We will not change MM into -1/+1"
Also WG: "We are separating CVs into even-tier only"
Still WG: *matching T8 CVs to fight against T10 AA*
WG: *know that T8 CV players complain about T10 AA*
Of course, WG: "We will not change MM into -1/+1"

 

Third,
Rewarding needs some serious rework. Since many people know that damage is rewarded for the percentage of damage caused to a ship instead of the absolute amount of damage dealt, AND the fact that CVs are avoiding cruisers and BBs because of their formidable AA,... I think you can deduce what my point is. Thatisaverystupidsystem.
Rewards for Spotting (either ship, aircraft or torpedo), Damage upon Spotting, Capturing, Defending, Secondary damage/hit and Potential damage ALL need to be increased greatly.
So, playing DDs in the current state of the game is basically masochism unless you know your shi- ships.
EDIT. This will be a cascade of "good teamplay": BBs get targeted more -> they help team mates push -> they get more rewards from potential damage and secondary hit/damage and defending -> the game is won, even if the game is lost, people will get more rewards).

 

Fourth,
CV vs CV is still need to be a thing. "Summonable" fighters (oh boy, I have said this for the 57395th time), is the most stupidest idea since the addition of the current Musashi.
EDIT. Actually, making CVs use their DCP automatically is even stupider than Musashi.

 

 

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
Member
743 posts
19,634 battles

I believe the solution to CV:DD interactions is a pretty simple one. The chief problem for a DD isn't so much the damage a CV deals, but the intel he provides for his team mates. A simple change to spotting would be that when a CV spots a DD, he's only spotted for the aircraft that have spotted him. For everyone else the DDs position is published on the Mini Map, much like in cyclone situations, without providing enough intel to give those vessels a firing solution. It has real life plausibility too as attack aircraft of the period were not able to direct the fire control of allied vessels.

Now that I'm thinking about it, such a mechanic should be extended to all ships.

It would also mean that in CV games it's not just the carriers earning spotting ribbons for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[LBAS]
Member
1,548 posts

To be honest, DD don't need strong AA.

What I want is AA on DD have disruptive effect (plane aim raticle wider) by default without rely on DFAA.

WG can make this effect only on reinforced side if they want.

With weak AA but have disruptive effect, DD will be harder to hit, CV won't lose plane either.

DD can also provide AA support to friendly by lower plane accuracy instead of shoot them down.

 

Spotting however is another issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
Member
541 posts
6,731 battles

I have to say, we all have managed to be a lot more civil in our discussion than the many, many threads on NA that discuss the same topic.:Smile_teethhappy:

 

@dejiko_nyo I'm actually curious if WOWS has enough players in it to make -1/+1 MM practical, like they implemented awhile back in WoT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,321
Member
4,516 posts
8,621 battles
10 minutes ago, TD1 said:

I'm actually curious if WOWS has enough players in it to make -1/+1 MM practical, like they implemented awhile back in WoT.

Let say that T8 ships in T10 matches is about 33% of the number of ships, and I barely ever get more than 2 minutes (the average is less than 1 minute) of queue waiting time during peak hour (my local time), for many Updates in a row. 33% increased queue waiting time is barely an issue for me.

My opinion anyway.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


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

×