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

Major Overhaul For Carriers

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Everyone's aware of the current state carriers are in.

However aside from "nerf" "buff" and "remove" there aren't many sophisticated ideas on how to improve carrier gameplay.

 

Well, a long time ago, in a test phase far far away, I made a post about how to improve, or better to say remake carrier gameplay.

That post has since been lost in the void of time and space, however, the idea is still there.

 

Some of the major issues of CV gameplay are:

 

  • Aerial Superiority (Fighter loadouts) being ineffective compared to bomber loadouts
  • A huge difference between rewards for bombing and shooting down aircrafts
  • Aircraft/RTS controls being way too basic

 

There are other minor issues and some major issues that will be fixed in 0.4.1,

however the above mentioned problems will remain even post-0.4.1.

(For example the tier difference of fighters will be fixed in the next patch)

 

Rewards for Shooting Down Aircrafts

 

Now fixing the rewards for shooting down aircrafts isn't much of a problem.

Atleast that's what one would think, however the reason why (I assume) WG hasn't just

simply changed the rewards is that while supporting allies with AA fire is encouraged it shouldn't

be the main job of certain ships.

 

There are a few possible options to avoid players to just run around other ships the entire battle.

 

1.) Only Buff Rewards for CVs

The obvious 08/15 option is to only buff the rewards for CVs, making Aerial Superiority (AS) more appealing,

while AA support for ships keeps being a secondary action.

With the upcoming changes in the MM this should work well, since the current situation of one team

having a CV while the other one doesn't won't happen anymore.

 

The obvious downside is that AA support for ships won't be further encouraged.

This could be countered by giving the Clear Sky achievement a corresponding flag that's valuable enough

to be sought after.

 

The obvious choice would be a flag, which increases AA/Fighter strength, however keeping in mind that

these flags are supposed to be valuable enough to encourage players to actively try to get them something better

is required.

My suggestion would be a combination of the exp and credit flags with far lower bonuses.

For example instead of 50% exp and 20% credits, this flag grants 10% exp and 5% credits... of course it stacks with the other flags(!).

 

2) Minor Reward Buff

This buff would also grant better rewards for ship AA.

The downside obviously is that the reward can't be increased too much, since the idea is still to have ship AA to be a secondary role.

 

Aside from that, most things mentioned under 1) also fit here.

 

Personally I find option 1) to be the most appealing, especially in connection with the upcoming changes in 0.4.1.

And in combination with the other things I'm about to suggest below.

 

Reworking Aircraft Gameplay

 

Now this is the real deal.

And since I'm not sure where to start I'll just pick a random point and move on from there.

 

First of all...

 

Focus on Aerial Superiority

He who conquers the skies, wins the battle.

During alpha a CV with the fighter loadout could devastate any bombers launched by the opposing CV.

Obviously this ability was negated somewhat if the enemy CV had the hybrid loadout, or negated mostly if it was

also running the fighter loadout.

 

Generally you could say that during alpha fighters were the most important aircrafts, since they could render the

opposing CV completely useless, all while dealing some damage to ships with it's dive bomber squadron.

 

Ever since CBT started this changed, it changed to make CVs 100% about bombing targets,

while Aerial Superiority became worthless.

It's impossible to achieve Aerial Superiority in low/mid tiers, since all fighter loadouts lost 1 fighter squadron.

This in return translates into the CV being unable to cover the entire map, thus bombers can and will fly through

the holes inside the fighter protected area and launch their attack.

 

In my opinion we need to see a return to the previous fighter focus.

In order to do so several changes have to occur, giving the player better rewards is only a placebo,

and the new ability for fighters to make strafe runs (Patch 0.4.1) will not change anything.

(It's a useless ability that will get your fighters killed against any somewhat decent player)

 

Instead what I'd prefer to see is a return of the old fighter loadouts.

(3 Fighter squadrons for US CVs, equivalent amount for JP Cvs)

However that's not all there is to it.

 

Fighters need to have a much easier time obliterating unprotected bombers.

However simply giving the fighters more damage would once again only be a 08/15

way to improve the situation.

 

Which brings me to the next point.

 

Height System

Aircrafts usually operate on different heights, depending on their mission and position.

A squadron of torpedo bombers will try to fly as high as possible to avoid detection,

but prior to engaging it'll have to drop down to a few meters above the sea to drop torpedoes.

 

Likewise fighters will attempt to gain high altitudes, not only to avoid detection, but also to dive unto

their targets, the most favourable position for a fighter.

 

Thus I suggest the addition of manually adjustable heights for aircrafts.

These should be pre-defined heights in order to keep the game easy to control.

 

The following heights serve as an example, I kept the number of heights as low as possible to

once again keep the controls simple, while the gameplay becomes deeper.

 

Sea Level

This is the height the game uses for aircrafts when they launch/land and while they attack ground targets.

It's also used for torpedo bombers, which will have to fly down to this height far before engaging their target.

 

At this height AA guns get an accuracy bonus due to targets being easier to hit.

(See below on how to get your torpedo bombers through AA despite them being easy targets)

Dive bombers will have an easier time due to attacking from a hard to defend against angle, plus coming in with high speed and

thus being able to escape faster than torpedo bombers.

 

Standart Level

The currently used flight height for aircrafts and also the height aircraft will go to after launching or attacking ground targets.

Aircrafts are still below the clouds and can be spotted easily, in return they can also spot enemies without a problem.

 

Unlike torpedo bombers, dive bombers don't need to get down to the Sea Level before launching their attacks.

They can, thus, attack from any selected height.

 

AA guns will still do considerable damage. (About as much as they do now)

 

Above the Clouds

Up here is where things start to get interesting.

 

Ships can't spot aircrafts at this altitude and likewise aircrafts won't be able to spot ships.

However if aircrafts or ships get spotted by other means they can be targeted.

 

Additionally to this ships can decide to open fire into the clouds with their AA guns, this however will

reduce their concealment greatly, and while the AA guns fire into the clouds they obviously can't deal with other threats.

Accuracy for AA is also greatly reduced.

 

Dive bombers can still start their attack from this altitude, however they will take longer to reach the perfect height

for their attack run, hence will be inside the enemy's AA fire for a longer period of time.

 

High Altitude

Aerial combat often revolves around getting higher than the enemy to easily get into a favourable position.

This height is a potential 4th one, however it might make the game too complex.

My idea is to only let high tier (VIII+) fighters operate at this height.

After gaining experience on low and mid tier CVs the player should be able to handle a 4th height.

 

AA guns won't hit targets at this altitude.

 

Bombers can't reach this altitude since they're too heavy. (Realistically they could, it would just take forever and WoWS is not a realistic game, so...)

 

And now for the major plotpoint that makes these heights and usage of them so important.

 

Fighter Dive Bonus

 

Fighters diving on targets will get a damage bonus.

Depending on the target they dive upon the damage will vary.

 

Bombers being caught in a dive attack will take severe damage due to their bad maneuverability.

Fighters will take higher damage, however it will come down to making the difference of 1-2 additional aircrafts lost

rather than 1 aircraft lost for each side in a regular encounter. (Both squadrons being of the same strength)

 

As you might imagine this is a huge point.

Fighters will be capable of obliterating cocky players that refuse to cover their bombers or gain altitude.

This change alone should (theoretically) cause a major shift towards Aerial Superiority.

 

The majority of CV gameplay will now happen far above any ship and both dive bombers and fighters will become

far more important.

Meanwhile torpedo bombers will be the mid-/endgame game changers when ship AA won't be as much of a problem anymore,

because...

 

Strafing AA

How to deal with the improved ship AA?

What to do with your fighters after obliterating the enemy's air forces?

 

Simple, order your dive bombers and fighters to make strafe runs on the target's AA to open a path for your torpedo bombers.

So here is the first prototype on how this could work.

 

Dive bombers will automatically open fire with their guns after dropping their bombs, dealing low to medium damage

to the target's AA armament.

In addition dive bombers can be ordered to focus on enemy AA, translating in lower damage/fire chance from bombs but far higher damage

to enemy AA armaments.

 

Fighters can be ordered to launch strafing runs to damage/destroy enemy AA.

Since they lack bombs and their guns are equipped for anti-aircraft rather than ground attacks they'll do less damage than dive bombers.

They will use a lot of ammunition while strafing, which is why it should only be considered

while the enemy fighters are downed or busy elsewhere.

 

Torpedo/Dive Bombers

The original torpedo bomber squadron should be a hybrid squadron.

I.e. instead of launching them with torpedoes they should have the option to launch with bombs instead.

Changing the loadout will add +5 seconds to the resupply, in the beginning of the battle/prior to the first launch

the change will be instantaneous.

 

The bomb loadout will be weaker than the official dive bomber squadron's and torpedo bombers lack

the guns to deal additional damage to AA armaments.

 

This way torpedo bombers won't be useless early game, however sneaky/clever players can still try to utilise torpedo bombers

early game if they find a way to get past the enemy's aircrafts/AA.

 

Dive bombers won't be able to mount torpedoes.

 

Possibility to mount small bombs on fighters while reducing the fighters' speed.

 


 

Final Conclusion

I probably forgot to mention a thing or two again.

Sadly I don't have access to the old post of mine, which I could've expanded upon instead of re-writing the whole thing

with the addition of the experience I gained post OBT.

 

Lastly this is a very basic prototype.

Obviously it lacks exact numbers, however the general/basic idea of making carrier gameplay

more interesting, while raising the bar, while keeping it as simple as possible to understand should come across.

 

Personally I think the upcoming changes in 0.4.1 are not enough, and I also don't think that WG will keep it at that.

They've already mentioned nerfing JP CVs among other things.

However, like I mentioned above... that's the 08/15 way to do it.

 

A complete remake of the system would be the better choice in my opinion, and if anything right now is the time to do it.

The game is still fresh and major changes to the gameplay need to happen prior to the full release that will eventually knock on the door.

 

Anyway, that's me writing a gigantic wall of flesh words.

If you've read it all, ggwp.

If you've skipped past all the annoying letters and words...

/Roll D20

Result: 1

You walk up the stairs, but suddenly lose all your strength.

In your weakened state you're unable to keep yourself steady and fall to your death.

Start again on page 1.

 

Mfg

Retia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

+1 I definitely support this as something worth pursuing, discussing and debating. It adds a new layer of gameplay and realism to what we currently have while at the same time not being too complicating.

Edited by Haku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

There are some major issues with your proposal. I'd like to write (a long wall of text) and discuss, but I'll have to leave that for tomorrow because it's 12:04 AM over here. :hiding:

 

Just a short comment first: So your idea is to have CV duel it out first then go for surface ships later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Just a short comment first: So your idea is to have CV duel it out first then go for surface ships later?

 

Generally, yes.

However it's also possible to attack targets in-between or right away, just requires a change of tactics.

For example you could only send out your fighters to higher altitudes while leaving your bombers at lower altitude.

Fighters keep enemy fighters occupied, dive bombers disable a target's AA and torpedo bombers do their job.

 

Obviously if your bombers get caught by fighters at that point... well... they're screwed... 100% screwed not just:

"Oh noes, you downed my bombers after they torpedoe'd this BB for 80% of it's hitpoints!"

 

A friend of mine also wrote this in response in chat:

Agree on most of them, there are maybe one or two things that I would like to be added, but it's mostly nit picking.

 

Just one little thing:

Make strafing suppress the enemy air defence, i.e. working at 1/3 (place holder) of the total efficency rather than outright destroy it.

Much like the current AA ability I feel like the out right destruction should be something that DB do.

Of course I wouldn't mind to see rockets on figthers to do that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
4,335 battles

I really like the above the clouds idea since I think aircraft spotting everything is the biggest issue with the game.

Still though, I'm not sure if its fixable. 

Like it or not, aircraft made all the gun ships obsolete. 

Playing a BB in a Jutland simulator? Yes.

Playing a BB in a Tsushima simulator? Hell Yes.

Playing a BB in a Midway, Coral Sea, Force Z, Yamato etc. etc. Simulator? MMmmm. Not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

"Aerial Superiority (Fighter loadouts) being ineffective compared to bomber loadouts"

  

 

TOTALLY NOT TRUE for IJN CVs. From Hosho to Hakuryu, they retain 2 torpedo squadron and retain their ability to wreck ships. As they go up, their cruising speed increasing thus their sortie rate and damage output. So now, with fcked up IJN mod.3 flight controls, it makes even more problem with the suggestion below:
 

"Rewards for Shooting Down Aircrafts"

 

This will only, yet again, benefit the IJN. If you play high tier IJN CVs, you notice most of players go for 3-2-2 and 4-2-2. They can dish out 100k+ damage with ease while controlling the skies and now with extra rewards for killing planes, we ought to see hakuryu and taiho averaging 3k-4k EXP / game. So  this suggestion create more problem unless they remove the torpedo bombers from IJN air superiority loadouts/setups/FCs.

 

"The obvious 08/15 option is to only buff the rewards for CVs, making Aerial Superiority (AS) more appealing,"

 

IF you've been playing high tier CV as i've said, there is no need to make AS more appealing. 422 is the trend right now. USN CV's lack of torpedo bombers in their AS setups makes players avoid it. Simple as that.

 

"Height System"

 

This makes everything complicated. What we have now is much simpler gameplay for CVs but look at all these problems. Now, imagine if we make things complicated and take note that this will be a gameplay rework  at OBT phase. From newbies complaining they don't know how to play, to new balancing issues, to new bugs. no no no

 

 

The problem lies with WG. There have been a lot of feasible balancing solution I've read in this forums but sadly not this one nevertheless this too would just be a simple forum thread never to be considered by the devs.

 

 

 




 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

Point #1 will need to be revamped, considering that we are changing the system.

 

Point #2 is fundamentally incorrect; right now the system is too simple. We need to make it just a little bit more complicated for the amount of potential damage that you can do in a carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

"Aerial Superiority (Fighter loadouts) being ineffective compared to bomber loadouts"

  

 

TOTALLY NOT TRUE for IJN CVs. From Hosho to Hakuryu, they retain 2 torpedo squadron and retain their ability to wreck ships. As they go up, their cruising speed increasing thus their sortie rate and damage output. So now, with fcked up IJN mod.3 flight controls, it makes even more problem with the suggestion below:

 

"Rewards for Shooting Down Aircrafts"

 

This will only, yet again, benefit the IJN. If you play high tier IJN CVs, you notice most of players go for 3-2-2 and 4-2-2. They can dish out 100k+ damage with ease while controlling the skies and now with extra rewards for killing planes, we ought to see hakuryu and taiho averaging 3k-4k EXP / game. So  this suggestion create more problem unless they remove the torpedo bombers from IJN air superiority loadouts/setups/FCs.

 

"The obvious 08/15 option is to only buff the rewards for CVs, making Aerial Superiority (AS) more appealing,"

 

IF you've been playing high tier CV as i've said, there is no need to make AS more appealing. 422 is the trend right now. USN CV's lack of torpedo bombers in their AS setups makes players avoid it. Simple as that.

 

"Height System"

 

This makes everything complicated. What we have now is much simpler gameplay for CVs but look at all these problems. Now, imagine if we make things complicated and take note that this will be a gameplay rework  at OBT phase. From newbies complaining they don't know how to play, to new balancing issues, to new bugs. no no no

 

 

The problem lies with WG. There have been a lot of feasible balancing solution I've read in this forums but sadly not this one nevertheless this too would just be a simple forum thread never to be considered by the devs.

 

No one said that aircraft loadout aren't going to change while rebalancing CV mechanics.

Again, this suggestion by Retia mainly deals with core mechanics of CV gameplay, aircraft loadout is a balance issue which is going to be dealt with later if this suggestion gets through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

"Aerial Superiority (Fighter loadouts) being ineffective compared to bomber loadouts"

  

TOTALLY NOT TRUE for IJN CVs. From Hosho to Hakuryu, they retain 2 torpedo squadron and retain their ability to wreck ships. As they go up, their cruising speed increasing thus their sortie rate and damage output. So now, with fcked up IJN mod.3 flight controls, it makes even more problem with the suggestion below.

 

There's currently no reason to utilise fighters below tier IX at all.

To cover the entire map/team a CV requires atleast 3 fighter squadrons, which up until tier IX doesn't happen.

 

Hence up until tier IX you can freely roam the skies with bombers.

This of course depends on how good the player is at micro managing a grand total of less than a dozen units.

Any fighter squadron taken into combat right now is quite literally just a pawn.

They're used to cover up mistakes made by the CV player, nothing more, nothing less.

 

With the new system it will be essential to have fighters around at all time while coordinating them well.

 

"Rewards for Shooting Down Aircrafts"

 

This will only, yet again, benefit the IJN. If you play high tier IJN CVs, you notice most of players go for 3-2-2 and 4-2-2. They can dish out 100k+ damage with ease while controlling the skies and now with extra rewards for killing planes, we ought to see hakuryu and taiho averaging 3k-4k EXP / game. So  this suggestion create more problem unless they remove the torpedo bombers from IJN air superiority loadouts/setups/FCs.

 

Loadouts are also subject to change.

To quote myself:

Instead what I'd prefer to see is a return of the old fighter loadouts.

(3 Fighter squadrons for US CVs, equivalent amount for JP Cvs)

 

And with the new system bombing damage might just aswell be nerfed, since it's not as important as it used to be.

Obviously it shouldn't be a major nerf, after all bomb/torpedo damage should still be enough to be able to make a difference.

However this is, as mentioned in the OP data that needs to be tested first.

 

"Height System"

 

This makes everything complicated. What we have now is much simpler gameplay for CVs but look at all these problems. Now, imagine if we make things complicated and take note that this will be a gameplay rework  at OBT phase. From newbies complaining they don't know how to play, to new balancing issues, to new bugs. no no no

 

Wargaming is currently working on a complete overhaul/rework for SPGs in WoT.

And WG isn't the only company who changed key game mechanics partially or completely even way beyond the initial release.

 

Heck, the entire HE damage system in WoT was changed a few months after the game's release.

It completely changed the meta from HE being cool against highly armored targets to HE being utterly useless unless fired by an howitzer.

 

SPGs during WoT's beta phase had a 100% accuracy which was nerfed greatly after release.

And I have several more examples, both from WG titles and other companies where changes occured during late beta phases or even post release.

 

It almost sounds like you assume that WoWS will be fully playable within the next few months.

The simple reality is that we'll get a somewhat full product in a year or two, and that's a very favourable time table.

 

As for the system being too complicated.

Pressing a button to order a selected squadron to fly higher or lower is complicated?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Member
116 posts
12,436 battles

This reads more like a general buff to carriers. It might make things more interesting for CVs, especially CV vs CV fights, but it doesn't improve the situation from the current one for other classes vs CVs.


 

AA net too thick? Move planes to a higher altitude and bypass it. Want to perform a surprise attack from an unexpected angle? Hide your planes above the clouds.

Edited by Echo_8_ERA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

Exactly. But doing so takes away valuable time, and if you're spotted in the clouds the ship can target you all the way as the dive bombers perform their roles. Torpedo bombers need to come down to sea level before they can perform their hits, too. All that takes time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Member
116 posts
12,436 battles

Exactly. But doing so takes away valuable time, and if you're spotted in the clouds the ship can target you all the way as the dive bombers perform their roles. Torpedo bombers need to come down to sea level before they can perform their hits, too. All that takes time.

 

Ah, before I make a fool of myself, does AA function as a spherical bubble or as cylinder towering into the sky around a ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

 

Ah, before I make a fool of myself, does AA function as a spherical bubble or as cylinder towering into the sky around a ship?

 

Atm it should be a simple get into range and start shooting thing, i.e. a cylinder.

Changes with the addition of different altitudes could be easily tested, as can be AA capability,

especially if fighters/bombers are capable of targeting AA armaments.

 

As Haku already mentioned torpedo bombers will need to get very low and additionally they'll take massive if they're caught by diving fighters.

Also keep in mind that diving fighters are fast... very fast, they'll be able to easily intercept low flying targets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Member
116 posts
12,436 battles

 

Atm it should be a simple get into range and start shooting thing, i.e. a cylinder.

Changes with the addition of different altitudes could be easily tested, as can be AA capability,

especially if fighters/bombers are capable of targeting AA armaments.

 

As Haku already mentioned torpedo bombers will need to get very low and additionally they'll take massive if they're caught by diving fighters.

Also keep in mind that diving fighters are fast... very fast, they'll be able to easily intercept low flying targets.

 

 

Alright, thanks. It being a bubble would have made me rage since higher altitudes would force ships to be in even tighter formations for overlapping AA to work.

 

 

The idea still doesn't sit well with me, because it pushes the role of defending against aircraft even more towards carriers. If your own carrier gets sunk, the enemy CV just needs to move their planes above the clouds and your team will never spot the planes coming. A lot of people already don't react early enough to deal with incoming bombers in the current system, what more if you have planes that suddenly appear 5km out coming from an unexpected attack vector?

 

 Also, on a selfish note, it doesn't really address the problems destroyers have at higher tiers where it's hard to torpedo anybody because either the torpedoes or the ships themselves are constantly getting spotted by overflying aircraft.

Edited by Echo_8_ERA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

If you're at a higher altitude, you (probably, going by Retia's idea) can't spot destroyer-launched torpedoes. Thus it becomes a balance of spending the time to gain altitude while at the same time reducing your capability to spot torpedoes. Then we would see some more sophisticated battle formations for aircraft (one squadron flies high, one low, and so on...) as we add altitude into the available dimensions that aircraft can fight in.

 

Right now, the moment you are within the AA range, you take damage, surprise or not. If you don't want to have to deal with your scenario, just protect your carrier. You also need to remember that these are just ideas being floated around, and while they are a good step forward (with lots of discussion already done beforehand), it can stand to be further improved. In general, cloud height is about 2 kilometres, which is high enough for the last line of your AA defence to deal with. I don't think that planes flying above cloud cover should not be able to be spotted until very close, but the AA accuracy should be decreased, and balance having an altitude advantage with dive bombers needing to spend more time to dive on the attack vector (in a way similar to torpedo bombers in-game), which leaves them more exposed to AA point defences.

 

Retia's proposal will cause some pretty drastic changes, but I feel that they are necessary for the role of the aircraft carrier to be balanced.

Edited by Haku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

 Also, on a selfish note, it doesn't really address the problems destroyers have at higher tiers where it's hard to torpedo anybody because either the torpedoes or the ships themselves are constantly getting spotted by overflying aircraft.

 

This problem could be solved by simply nerfing torpedo detection from the air, especially if the plane is not at sea level altitude.

 

The idea still doesn't sit well with me, because it pushes the role of defending against aircraft even more towards carriers. If your own carrier gets sunk, the enemy CV just needs to move their planes above the clouds and your team will never spot the planes coming. A lot of people already don't react early enough to deal with incoming bombers in the current system, what more if you have planes that suddenly appear 5km out coming from an unexpected attack vector?

 

5km is just an initial proposal for the system, that value could be changed depending on gameplay balance requirement.

 

Again, something that everyone should take note reading this topic: This is just a proposal for the system, it does not list all the changes that would follow the overhaul (such as CV loadout tweaks) but the main point is discussing how would this new system works and then tweaks other parameters accordingly. 

 

I'm gonna post my opinion and changes suggestion on next post, because it's gonna be a long one and I want to get this reply out quick. Sorry first for double post coming up next. :hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

You know, if this wasn't an arcade game your idea about aircraft altitude system is brilliant, or they could add a realistic and simulator battle like WT and implement this idea.

Now let me tell you why this will cause chaos among our majority of players which are, unfortunately, not so bright. Heck, if it was just me I would have liked this to happen.
 

CVs are far more complicated than SPGs in WoT. SPGs just go to some quiet corner and start clicking, some movement involved but not that complicated. CVs force players to learn how to micro-manage and if a player never played RTS games before they will be having a hard time. IJN CVs aside, USN CVs doesn't just click and kill, manual torp dropping requires significant skill to execute decently. There are also a lot more things to take in consideration here than in WoT.

 

Now, when we implement this altitude system, it wouldn't just be as simple as 1-click-change-altitude. All new balancing parameters comes to place. How are you gonna balance different aircraft climbrate/diving speed/max diving speed/diving distance(you can't dive straight nose down)? How are you gonna scale the detection rate of different aircrafts at different altitudes? Also, aircraft flies faster at higher altitudes, so CVs become even more deadlier to other classes and as they dive they gain even more speed. How does altitude affect fighter's combat capability?  How will other ship classes know what is the current altitude level of the incoming plane? How are we going to make an ergonomic GUI to avoid too much confusion for other ship classes(please consider the skill level of most of our players)? Wouldn't the extra workload of processing the aircraft altitude in their brains make this game less appealing to the mass public, and make this game even less popular than it is right now? Right now, even the torpedoes are causing a lot of complaints, how much more when they see aircrafts above their heads and they can't shoot them.

 

With a much simpler game mechanic, WG fails to balance the CVs and as I've said, I've read some feasible solutions that grasp the true problem of CV gameplay but is never seen nor taken notice. The thing is, WG fails to see where the problem is and will continue to make wrong changes. HE rework, SPG 100% accuracy rework, AP penetration rework, those stuff are MINOR compared to this.

And, shouldn't anyone assume a game is fully playable when a company started getting money and is out of pre-order phase? Of course me, and some other players out there, wants this game fully playable right now. We paid real money for premium account and we want our money's worth. Of course we now know not to drop a single dime on this game ever again too.

 

 

No one said that aircraft loadout aren't going to change while rebalancing CV mechanics.

Again, this suggestion by Retia mainly deals with core mechanics of CV gameplay, aircraft loadout is a balance issue which is going to be dealt with later if this suggestion gets through. 

 

 

Why not deal with loadout problem first? You're gonna add more complicated problems before you fix the much simpler one? You're gonna add more storey to your building without fixing your foundations? If that doesn't sound like a bad idea to you then nothing will.

Edited by Deicide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

You know, if this wasn't an arcade game your idea about aircraft altitude system is brilliant, or they could add a realistic and simulator battle like WT and implement this idea.

 

Now let me tell you why this will cause chaos among our majority of players which are, unfortunately, not so bright. Heck, if it was just me I would have liked this to happen.

 

CVs are far more complicated than SPGs in WoT. SPGs just go to some quiet corner and start clicking, some movement involved but not that complicated. CVs force players to learn how to micro-manage and if a player never played RTS games before they will be having a hard time. IJN CVs aside, USN CVs doesn't just click and kill, manual torp dropping requires significant skill to execute decently. There are also a lot more things to take in consideration here than in WoT.

 

Now, when we implement this altitude system, it wouldn't just be as simple as 1-click-change-altitude. All new balancing parameters comes to place. How are you gonna balance different aircraft climbrate/diving speed/max diving speed/diving distance(you can't dive straight nose down)? How are you gonna scale the detection rate of different aircrafts at different altitudes? Also, aircraft flies faster at higher altitudes, so CVs become even more deadlier to other classes and as they dive they gain even more speed. How does altitude affect fighter's combat capability?  How will other ship classes know what is the current altitude level of the incoming plane? How are we going to make an ergonomic GUI to avoid too much confusion for other ship classes(please consider the skill level of most of our players)? Wouldn't the extra workload of processing the aircraft altitude in their brains make this game less appealing to the mass public, and make this game even less popular than it is right now? Right now, even the torpedoes are causing a lot of complaints, how much more when they see aircrafts above their heads and they can't shoot them.

 

With a much simpler game mechanic, WG fails to balance the CVs and as I've said, I've read some feasible solutions that grasp the true problem of CV gameplay but is never seen nor taken notice. The thing is, WG fails to see where the problem is and will continue to make wrong changes. HE rework, SPG 100% accuracy rework, AP penetration rework, those stuff are MINOR compared to this.

 

And, shouldn't anyone assume a game is fully playable when a company started getting money and is out of pre-order phase? Of course me, and some other players out there, wants this game fully playable right now. We paid real money for premium account and we want our money's worth. Of course we now know not to drop a single dime on this game ever again too.

 

 

 

Why not deal with loadout problem first? You're gonna add more complicated problems before you fix the much simpler one? You're gonna add more storey to your building without fixing your foundations? If that doesn't sound like a bad idea to you then nothing will.

 

This is because the loadout problem is directly tied to the CV mechanics. Fix the CV mechanics, the loadout problem will mostly fix itself. You've gotten the foundations and the upholstery switched.

 

You say it's complicated to balance the performance parameters of the planes: the climb rate, the camouflage, which altitude is best for which plane. The thing is, they are already doing it, on World of Tanks. Some of your questions can be handwaved (optimal altitude of plane, for instance). Some are also just plain incorrect (aircraft don't fly faster at higher altitudes. They in fact fly slower, but they are more fuel-efficient and hence cheaper) but WG has a lot of experience with balancing parameters from World of Tanks.

 

You bring up SPGs. Some would say that a game mechanic that is too simple, combined with the ability to deal damage without fear of immediate reprisal (mostly), has encouraged players to play SPGs. CVs do generally much more damage and can affect a game much more decisively than an SPG. Such game-changing influence should not be easy to wield and exploit. If anything, the simple game mechanics has made it extremely difficult for WG St. Petersburg to balance any which way without fundamentally changing everything. Even SPGs are getting a mechanic rework. Why not CVs? Complicated games have made it through in the past. Sid Meier's Civilisation is one.

 

You say that the majority is not intelligent. I say let's try it anyway and see how people do in the new CV mechanic. Give them a chance before dismissing it.

 

The game is fully playable. What on earth are you talking about?

Edited by Haku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Now let me tell you why this will cause chaos among our majority of players which are, unfortunately, not so bright. Heck, if it was just me I would have liked this to happen.

 

Since Haku already replied to the game mechanic related stuff I'll keep my focus on this statement.

The rework would be easier in terms of difficulty than the average MOBA game.

And from my experience in MOBAs on EU servers... ... yeah... people handle more complex/difficult game mechanics just fine.

 

People do respond badly to changes, however they usually have a harder time to adjust to minor but important changes.

Major reworks are usually easier to adjust to, since they're forced to re-think their actions instead of having to figure out what

minor changes occured that changed the meta.

 

And I gotta be honest, you're underestimating the playerbase by a lot.

Stupid people are everywhere in life, but they're not the majority.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

Why not deal with loadout problem first? You're gonna add more complicated problems before you fix the much simpler one? You're gonna add more storey to your building without fixing your foundations? If that doesn't sound like a bad idea to you then nothing will.

 

Because there already are various threads highlighting problems with Aircraft loadout? WG probably have noticed that, and should already been working for a solution. Ofcourse it takes time for them to do so, because balancing isn't the only thing they have to do.

This thread's aim is to provide some insights to further improve CV gameplay to make it more in-depth and skill-dependent, it's not necessarily going to come first before balancing other stuffs first but eventually it'll be needed as the game progress. WG knows what should they do first (probably), we are just giving them something to take note of.

 

 

Okay so, back to the topic, this is my proposal (wall of text): :hiding:

Mechanics:

 

 

A: Securing the air first, why and why not?

 

- This alternative method aims at having "just enough" Fighter defense against enemy CV assault/interception, and mainly focus on using aerial ordnance to sink enemy surface ships and chip down their team one step at a time. Take note this is not strike-heavy setup we saw on IJN CV pre-0.4.1 patch. This is actually balanced setup, or Strike setup for tier9-10 CV.

 

- Unlike first method, this centers more on your ability to out-done enemy CV in team battle rather than negating enemy's presence. This method certainly works best for experienced players who can do accurate strikes as well as knowing how to effectively utilize his outnumbered fighters to allow your Bombers to affect the battle.

 

- It's generally the most versatile and consistent method to affect the battle as CV, as you are less reliant on your team's surface ships. However, it has tough time going up against Fighter-heavy CV. If the CV captains are equally skilled, then a balanced-setup will sooner or later falls from aircraft losses stacking up, although not before you put some dents into enemy surface fleet.

 

* If Dynamic Flight Control is available:

- Not much would be changed, except if you manage to surprise the enemy CV who wasn't expecting the sudden increased number of Fighters from using Dynamic Flight Control. Doing so could deal same damage against enemy CV's aircraft reserve, but then it's likely the enemy CV would also go full fighter on, then it's a race to see who can knock out all enemy Fighters first before continue mass bombing. Either that or somehow you could tie against superior number Fighters with skillful controls, then your strike power would continue to pay off.

 

*Conclusion: I may be a little biased writing this section, as balanced setup has always been my way to go. Overall, I think this setup works for everyone, and you'll always get something out of it. You'll have trouble dealing with Fighter-heavy enemy CV though, trying to outsmart and out-skill your opponent is the only way out.

 

* Strike setup: It's basically what Balanced setups are right now. 100% Bombers setup are nolonger available, and not likely to return.

 

 

 

 

Okay that was much longer than I expected. :hiding:

The gameplay decision-making section is kinda confusing though, I shouldn't have tried to write them when falling asleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

I never thought I'd say this, but spoiler pyramids are actually more annoying than walls of text.

 

- 1 new skill "Boom and Zoom Expert" should be added. Some other skills are to be changed slightly.

 

A: Boom and Zoom Expert skill.

- This skill is useful for Fighters with higher speed than their opponents. It would also act as the counter to the Dogfighting Expert skill currently in-game.

 

- Fighters with higher speed gets increased DPS at the start of Fighter engagement. The buff lasts for about 3-5 sec, DPS increment is percentage-based. The value should be around 50%.

 

- Your Fighter needs to initiate the engagement for the buff to takes effect. The time from when you gives attack order to Fighter engagement starts should be atleast 2 seconds.

 

- Disengagement command gets increased success chance, as well as reduced cooldown to 10 sec.

 

(TIP) Fighters with higher speed and this skill trained should initiate attack command at a distance, and attempt to disengage after the DPS buff wears off. Rinse and repeat until enemy Fighter dies. Try to bait enemy into using his Evasive maneuver ability prematurely, and attack after the ability wears off.

 

 

B: Dogfighting Expert skill changes.

- This skill retains the DPS bonus from speed difference just like before. However, the bonus should cap at 15% extra DPS. with 30 knots speed difference (2 knots per 1% bonus).

 

- Evasive maneuvers action can be activated during Fighter engagement, activation delay is removed. Also, the cooldown after ability is used is reduced to 15 sec (down from 20 sec).

 

(TIP) When engaging Fighters of same tier but higher speed, try to time your Evasive maneuvers ability to nullify their Boom and Zoom attack then continue to win the duel in prolonged dogfight if you can. The timing is important, as enemy faster Fighter might bait you into using the ability prematurely, then proceeds to attack after it wears off.

 

 

C: Changes to skill tree.

- Expert Rear gunner and Torpedo Armament expertise skills remain the same.

 

- Aircraft Servicing Expert skill moves to tier5. Also the modifier changes (-15% service time, +10% aircraft durability).

 

- Remove Air supremacy skill. (It is biased, IJN CV gets more advantage from this skill than USN CV. Also it makes balancing CV loadout difficult)

 

- Boom and Zoom Expert skill is to be placed at tier4, due to it being an offensive Fighter skill. Dogfighting Expert skill remains at tier3 due to it being a defensive Fighter skill.

 

"Boom and Zoom"...fighters with higher speeds already have some pretty sizable advantages. Giving them a perk that helps them...no.

 

Your proposed change to "Dogfighting Expert" is impractical. No carrier seems to have fighters that are 30 knots slower than any other carrier it would realistically come into conflict with.

 

C: Changes to skill tree.

- Expert Rear gunner and Torpedo Armament expertise skills remain the same.

 

- Aircraft Servicing Expert skill moves to tier5. Also the modifier changes (-15% service time, +10% aircraft durability).

 

- Remove Air supremacy skill. (It is biased, IJN CV gets more advantage from this skill than USN CV. Also it makes balancing CV loadout difficult)

 

- Boom and Zoom Expert skill is to be placed at tier4, due to it being an offensive Fighter skill. Dogfighting Expert skill remains at tier3 due to it being a defensive Fighter skill.

 

I've talked about "Boom and Zoom" and "Dogfighting Expert". "Air Supremacy" I feel has merit and probably should not be removed from the tree at all.

 

Why is "Boom and Zoom" placed at Tier 4, when it is the natural counter to "Dogfighting Expert"?

 

Dynamic Flight Control

 

Dislike it immensely and disagree. Players should be punished for bringing too many of one type of plane into a match.

 

Everything else after that is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

If anything, I think I prefer a slider-scale of planes, similar to how we decide what ammo to bring in World of Tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

I never thought I'd say this, but spoiler pyramids are actually more annoying than walls of text.

 

 

I can understand "disengage". I'm not sure if I like "evasive manoeuvres". It would negate the effect of fighters diving on you if the CV commander is vigilant.

 

That 2-sec execution delay is there so that Boom and Zoom tactics could work if the CV captain pays attention. It's the same both ways. 

Maybe removing the delay removal from the skill would make it more fair.

 

"Boom and Zoom"...fighters with higher speeds already have some pretty sizable advantages. Giving them a perk that helps them...no.

 

Your proposed change to "Dogfighting Expert" is impractical. No carrier seems to have fighters that are 30 knots slower than any other carrier it would realistically come into conflict with.

 

Right now are there any real advantage from having higher speed, aside from, u know, speed? Current Dogfight expert means that being slower is actually better during Fighter engagement. (And no, I'm not taking Retia's proposal into account for this post).

30 knots is over doing, maybe cutting it down to 15 would be more reasonable. 

 

Dogfighting is needed because there will be times when you have to engage higher tier Fighters who have superior specs all around, you could win a ship of higher tier if you are more experienced, then why not make it so for Fighters?

 

Dislike it immensely and disagree. Players should be punished for bringing too many of one type of plane into a match.

 

Everything else after that is moot.

 

There is such punishment, because no matter your squad loadout the plane losses will stack up regardless.

CV who bring many Fighters and few Bombers can go Strike-Heavy setup, but he still can't take much losses anyway.

CV who bring many Bombers and few Fighters can go Air Superiority, but he'll lose that fight in the long run because of lower plane reserve anyway.

It's about chipping down the opponent's reserve and adapting to the situation more than stick with what you have.

 

If anything, I think I prefer a slider-scale of planes, similar to how we decide what ammo to bring in World of Tanks.

 

That works too, although we still need limits to prevent people from going 100% on 1 type of plane, or completely neglecting DB.

 

Edited by Gezeiten_Heimatwelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

1. Changes to Fighter controls

 

I've got to be honest, I'm not a fan of active abilities in RTS-style modes/games.

Personally I prefer passives and automatic abilities over anything.

 

The greatest problem I see with a more "Starcraft-esque" gameplay is that people are bad at it.

As in... really bad at it, and we'll prolly see a few whining threads about how OP the new strafing ability for fighters in 0.4.1 is...

and it's not... I tested it... it's a death trap against anyone who played any RTS ever...

 

I assume though, that activatable abilities could be added in the far future, potentially adding them after all nations are decked out.

Might even go as far as to give every nation their own ability.

 

For example, give german fighters an ability to quickly escape back above the clouds after diving on a target.

 

The problem I see is that every ability should follow the risk&reward principle... and off the top of my hat I can't really think of anything

that would justify adding the system.

 

2. Changes to commander skills:

 

I'd say most of these ideas should prolly go into national perks instead.

For example british aircrafts are darn good at turning, russian aircrafts utilise heavy weaponry (cannons) but usually aren't as fast as others, etc.

Advancing from that certain nations aircrafts could get improved evasion and other perks in certain situations.

 

As for other commander skills.

In the future I'd like to see commander skills for CVs to be seperated into different "skill trees".

Despite loadout changes the big 3 will prolly still be:

- Strike loadout (Bombers plus maybe a single fighter squad)

- Hybrid (Self-explaining)

- Aerial Superiority (Fighters with few bombers)

 

On every tier there should be an option to pick from 3 CV/aircraft related skills.

Atleast one for each loadout, with potential for additional ones later on.

 

My proposal is to revamp the Flight control system. Instead of using pre-determined Aircraft composition, the Aircraft Composition should be dynamic while Aircraft Reserve is configured pre-battle.

 

Honestly not a fan of this idea, the problem is that pre-determined loadouts are much easier to balance.

Plus it will cause a major rift between good players and bad players.

Bad players will always choose the loadout they believe to be strong, right now that can be somewhat limited by pre-determined loadouts, but without that...

 

With the idea I mentioned of granting torpedo bombers the ability to be armed with (far smaller) bombs instead you'd still have loadouts to balance around with,

plus aircrafts won't be useless early/mid/late game.

 

- The nationality of Carrier will determines the upper limit of each type of plane that Carrier can carry.

USN CV can carry more Fighters than IJN CV, while IJN CV can carry more Bombers than USN CV. 

 

This is a notion I thought of being utterly nonsensical from the very introduction of IJN CVs.

Instead of making nations differ by appointing them major role (Air Superiority & Strike Groups),

they should instead be capable of doing these two, but in different ways.

 

For example IJN fighters (for the most part) aren't the greatest at climbing, their armor is fairly thin, too.

However in return they're very maneuverable.

 

Keeping my proposed game mechanics in mind that would translate into fighters that would prolly get dived upon,

however due to their mobility they can avoid most of the damage.

Not all of course, the goal should still be to get fighters as high an altitude as possible and if the dodge on IJN planes would

be too good the players would just stay at lower heights without having to care about being dived upon.

 

This could be where active abilities come in that boost diving damage or escape speed after diving.

 

Dynamic Flight Control

 

I don't think a complete swap should be a thing.

Give fighters very small bombs (50kg, 100kg... maybe 250kg but that's a far shot)

Let torpedo bombers outfit smaller bombs (250kg or 500kg) while dive bombers always

stay dive bombers with 800/1000kg bombs.

 

Obviously those numbers are just examples and will have to be changed according to the tier and balancing.

 

Completely swapping aircrafts returns to the same issue I mentioned before.

It will make the gap between decent and bad players even larger.

Just equipping fighters with small bombs while reducing their speed is a risk&reward situation.

Of course the fighters can still intercept enemy fighters, but they are very likely to lose that encounter.

Likewise torpedo bombers just won't deal much damage, but it's better than having to deal with massive losses due to heavy AA.

 

Gameplay decision-making

 

Not going to reply with anything to this, my proposal has a huge draw towards Aerial Superiority, especially since it will also be

a viable source of income and exp.

The true outcome however could only be determined by play testing.

Share this post


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

×