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

Suggestions on Carrier and AA Gameplay

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
1 post
189 battles

Greeting, fellas. This is an old WOWS player here. I have been playing the game since German battleships first appeared, and spent my time on several different servers and a wide range of ships. Though many accounts results in me not having an overall high tier of ships, I did manage to get a Große Kurfürst which introduced me to tier 10 battles. Yet this is my first post on any forums so nice to meet you all XD

Honestly speaking, the new mechanics introduced to AA and carrier gameplay is a bit frustrating for all players. So here are some suggestions I want to share, and I wish the game will continue to improve and get better in the future.

To start with, what is the problem with the old carrier gameplay? Personally, I think RTS or vehicular shooting is not the main issue. Even if the CV players are playing some sort of Tetris throughout the battle, if they enjoy it and the rest of the players are ok with it, then let them be. The problem lays in the sheer play style of carriers. 

For ships that don’t have a tremendous amount of AA power, aircrafts can simply evaporate their health bar with 2 groups of manually controlled torpedo bombers attacking from perpendicular directions—a basic tactic for previous carrier players that is almost unavoidable, and they can do nothing about it. For CV players, their planes would be immediately eliminated by some powerful AA ships like Minotaur, or just that their carrier happens to be called  Langley. 

To sum up, this causes the players’ experience being very extreme. You’re either being dominated from the sky as Musashi, or dominates the sky as Atlanta. Same for carriers, dominating the sea as Enterprise, or being dominated by all sorts of things as Lexington. Under this circumstance, the frustration of being dominated is extremely significant, thus severely impacting the gaming experience and passion. 

So the change was introduced in 0.8.5. This change is overall beneficial to non-CV players, since half of the carriers are removed and up until now, planes can still be shot down relatively easy. But there are still impacts on non-CV players that are negative. 

For CV players it was significant. They no longer have the ability to control multiple attack groups, and they lost the capability of fighting air superiority. This change not only nerfed their damage potential, but also limited their option for tactics. Plus, the idea of summoning fighter group from bomber squad in air to patrol certain area is just...hilarious.

Why is it bad for non-CV players? Well, despite the planes being easy to shot down, they can still inflict some serious damage on their target due to the new system allowing more accurate control and player’s focused attention on one squadron. This encourages all players to build AA for their captain and upgrade modules. As a German battleship fan, I really like the play style of building secondary, and not building AA often gets me into some trouble. Like I said, limiting the players’ option for tactics is not a really good idea.

So, how do we fix it? I think the key reason that lead to all this mass, is that unlike real-life pilots sitting in a cockpit, PLAYERS DON’T BREAK OFF FROM THEIR ATTACK RUN. In game, CV players don’t need to account the lost of life when controlling aircraft squadrons, and they don’t get scared by the AA shells exploding in air. This allows them to deal explosive damage, meanwhile suffering huge losses. 

Now, human don’t like losses. Losing 5 dollar then get a 10 dollar refund just sound way worse that getting 5 dollar for free. My suggestion is that all aircrafts’ can have a 2 part health bar, or a health bar and a “morale bar”. When being fired, the morale bar would be deducted first. Upon depletion, the plane would automatically leave the squadron, and head back to the carrier. If this happens during an attack run, the plane would immediately drop his payload blindly, then break off the attack run. This allows the AA guns on board to effectively protect themselves, while not making the day too miserable for carriers. 

Following this adjustment, the AA power of various ship need to be reconsidered. Ships with bad AA, such as Musashi, should have the ability to dispatch at least 50% of all attack planes, while having little to no chance of actually shooting down one. Ships with moderate AA, such as Gneisenau, should be able to dispatch 70% of the planes and have some decent chance on gunning down a few intruders. Ships with extremely good AA, like Worcester, should have no problem dispatching all plane, yet not actually shooting down more than half of the squadron.

Meanwhile, the layout of carrier squadrons should also be altered. Instead of categorizing into bombers, torpedo bombers and attack planes, carriers should send out “attack waves” which consists of both torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The layout differs among carriers and their respected flight control system. The current control is really great, but carriers should be allowed to control more squadron. When directly controlling one attack wave, the other wave would simply continue cruising along current direction. A fighter squadron should be added aside from the attack waves, enabling direct control and expertise in aerial combat, and they should be the ones really shooting down the planes instead of AA guns. 

A typical mid/high tier carrier should have a flight configuration of: 2 attack waves (with spares), each capable of making 3 attack runs, 2 of which torpedo bombers, 1 of which dive bombers, or vice versa; 1 fighter squadron (with spares) augmented with air-to-surface rockets.

Those are my general thoughts on the improvement of AA and carrier gameplay. I’d like to have more discussion with you guys. See you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[TLS]
Member
3,509 posts
19,146 battles

The fact about this "rework" and pointlessness was discussed intensively over the last 10 months. The official line is they "want to level the CV skill differences between players", "encourage more CV play", blah blah blah. 2nd they achieved slightly. First has crept back in. OP CV players remain OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
840
[FORCE]
Member
1,662 posts
10,066 battles
52 minutes ago, Wen__Ming said:

A typical mid/high tier carrier should have a flight configuration of: 2 attack waves (with spares), each capable of making 3 attack runs, 2 of which torpedo bombers, 1 of which dive bombers, or vice versa; 1 fighter squadron (with spares) augmented with air-to-surface rockets.

Well the thing is; none of the CVs can chain more than 2 attacks per run against the same tier ships at this state due to the overly-tweaked AA on some ships. (except at T4 where AA is non-existent on most ships). Of course this problem forces the CV players to "pre-drop" a portion of their squadrons in order to maintain enough number of planes for the late game which essentially sacrifice the damage output in the early game.

And I'm sure there is nothing can be done to improve it because even after CVs have been put into a long nerf & buff cycle, the end results remain unsatisfactory for both CV & non-CV players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
979
[HMAS_]
Member
2,072 posts
14,797 battles
4 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Oh no. OH NO.

NO NO NO NO NO. Not again.

 

4 hours ago, tsuenwan said:

"CV rework" discussion Rework.

 

5abc04b2b07e5_clockworkorangeeyes.gif.06d88b2f9d668067e6e9c67bda5e9ecc.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×