Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

Minimap Spotting.

Minimap spotting is a half baked solution and does not solve the core issues. I prefer the porposed solutions by far.

2 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

Minimum 3km torpedo arming distance.

This is a dumb solution, better to remove Subs altogether. What's more stoopid than being defenseless against anything within a 3km range? 

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, b101uk said:

for the changes to be effective they must ultimately work in coop to make CV and subs more effective than they are given both already struggle due to the short duration of coop games and the changes will only make both CV and subs less effective in coop.

I think it will be a buff to CVs in Coop as you will cycle your strikes faster and you'll hve more effective secondaries for direct damage dealing.

Subs probably not, but honestly Subs already suck in Coop... if you want to play Subs, PvP is the place.

 

[MnemonScarlet]

So, I haven't really thought all that much on the ramifications of this yet, but one thing does stand out to me.

It's both very funny and very WG that CVs are being introduced to teamplay-interaction-hell like the other types are. Where your effectiveness to do something that might be considered a basic gameplay loop in another game now partially depends on teammates not having their heads up their afts. In a game where teammates having zero clue is routinely the case. 😆

Example: DD can locate sub, but can't quite get into position for depth charging, meanwhile the BBs with ASW planes have switched their brains off/aren't paying the slightest bit of attention. So the DD can't do anything.

Or the classic example: BB vs DD in the endgame, BB has no relevant consumables. So it's down to a mindgame of using islands/etc to maybe make the DD mess up and kill himself, otherwise the BB may as well be dead lol.

In the CV's case with these changes, if he has issues spotting on his own, what does he do when everyone else is dead? Or just not spotting? Unless I read it wrong. lmao

Edited December 14, 2023 by MnemonScarlet

[Jakob Knight]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

 

I've advocated for that solution since fuggin' ever. The values for range and active time for the consumable can be adjusted for balance, don't get too worried about having 9km detection, I doubt it would match the range of the own ASW strike, the action time will be likely also much shorter. Also, don't underestimate the impact of better turning rate on Subs, Airstrikes have a very significant time to target and even with the current values it isn't difficult to dodge them if you maneuver out of the way. 

 

 

The interesting thing is if this will be in addition to the Hydro the ships already have the option to mount or in place of it.  Being able to chain hydro and sub surv and ASDC on the same platform seems overkill.  

 

Also, the idea that it isn't difficult to dodge an ASDC that you've moved out of the way of is kind of evident.  What about one you need to evade after the ASDC is launched on you?

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[ArIskandir]

35 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

The interesting thing is if this will be in addition to the Hydro the ships already have the option to mount or in place of it.  Being able to chain hydro and sub surv and ASDC on the same platform seems overkill.  

The Italians have no hydro and the IJN very likely will need to share the slot with something else. Even if tandem is possible, I don't think it would be much issue if restricted to just one unpopular and subpar TT line.

35 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

What about one you need to evade after the ASDC is launched on you?

The ASDC have a significant time to target (over 10 secs iirc) and the drop pattern is always rectagular. Moving out of the direct blast zone is still very possible.

Look here, I have no problem for moving out of the blast range of the retaliatory AS, even in Gato which isn't the fastest underwater boat. It becomes a similarly skill based interaction as BB artillery fire. 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by ArIskandir

[ArIskandir]

37 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

In the CV's case with these changes, if he has issues spotting on his own, what does he do when everyone else is dead? Or just not spotting? Unless I read it wrong. lmao

Its the same scenario as attacking a DD with the AA turned off, you make a first pass to locate the target and then start your second run pre lined to attack. Or you know, bait the enemy to shoot you and it will be proxy spotted. Then there's still the elephant in the room of fighter spotting and failing everything else, a buff to attack timers is not unreasonable. I would say CVs are far from being defenseless and more in line to what every other ship type experience in a regular basis.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Also may give something to do to guys being deplane

Completely  missed dis lil gem......

[Sailor_Moon]

2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

However, yet again they are "balancing" to the 1% of experts in the game rather than the 75% of normal players.

Isn't that how it's always been though?
Majority of playerbase: "Wow X ship really sucks, she needs buffs badly, here's proof that shows how awful her performance is"
Unicums: "lol wat, X ship is fine, I do insanely well in literally any ship in the game so obviously X-ship is perfectly fine if I can generate big numbers with it" (no offense to unicums mind you, you all simply play at a higher level compared to the rest of the playerbase, that's all.)
Wargaming: "X ship doesn't need buffs guys, spreadsheet says so"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, aleksi111 said:

CV planes being wholly immune to AA during transit would allow them to just B-line over hostile AA ships to strike at a target that is spotted otherwise, and not needing to skirt around the AA defences in order to preserve their strike craft..

This is why I LOVE this idea floated by me today (big props to @MBT808)in regards to AA interaction with the new "flight modes". 

Short and medium range AA only fire on planes in attack mode, but long-range AA (basically just flak bursts) can fire regardless of the flight mode. This would also help planes indirectly identify ship locations via flak puffs. Otherwise, if, say, DDs have their AA off, neither the plane nor the ship would be spotted (directly or indirectly).

So in other words, it'll be similar to how ASW planes are sometimes used in matches without subs. Spot the enemy ships indirectly via their active AA.

[aleksi111]

There's possibility for elegant and fair solutions, multiple ones

 

I however fear this currently announced one may fail at at two important bits:

A) Transparency & Simplicity -It should be (relatively) easy to grasp, simple and clear to understand how thing works, and not need you to read +30 page essey posted on some spider webbed nook in WoWS home site nobody visits.

 

B) Code reliability.

We all have encountered cases where things break:

-Secondaries firing at invisible targets out of range

-Armor plates missing on Montana, allowing Neptune to citadel

-Nürnberg's citadel being larger than hull model

-That one DD that ate ~10 torps to stern and lived to become GIF meme

-Myself in old T6 Ognevoi landing 6 torps on Mahan broadside on, who lost just 5k health, proceeded to sink me and cap the base 

 

... I am not honestly confident this brand new CV-AA interaction based on flight mode would be immune from bugging out -expecially with the coder's attention being divided by simultaneous working with new submarine Anti-Shotgun torps coding & all the other Code lines of the past.

Edited December 14, 2023 by aleksi111

[Jakob Knight]

29 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

 

Look here, I have no problem for moving out of the blast range of the retaliatory AS, even in Gato which isn't the fastest underwater boat. It becomes a similarly skill based interaction as BB artillery fire. 

 

 

Well, to be fair, you had no problem moving out of the blast radius because the ASDC were not dropped in a place where you were threatened by them...the BB dropped them well behind you and all you did was keep sailing out of a situation you weren't endangered by in the first place ( I had to look three times to see where that BB dropped their ASDCs because they were so far off target).  Had those ASDC been dropped with the accuracy of a competent plotter and detection for the better part of a minute, I doubt turning would have done you much good...especially if it wasn't just you and the BB.

 

Still, we will see how this tests out.  I'm always up for meeting new challenges in this game.

 

 

[Helstrem]

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

The interesting thing is if this will be in addition to the Hydro the ships already have the option to mount or in place of it.  Being able to chain hydro and sub surv and ASDC on the same platform seems overkill.  

 

Also, the idea that it isn't difficult to dodge an ASDC that you've moved out of the way of is kind of evident.  What about one you need to evade after the ASDC is launched on you?

 

 

If it is not "in addition to" then WG will very quickly find that Hydro will almost always be selected because hydro is potentially useful in every match, not just matches with a submarine and that submarine is on the flank you are on.

[BOBTHEBALL]

4 hours ago, Subtle_Octavian said:

Change CV spotting? nope.

Magical AA that ramps up with time, and magical immune planes. Flashbang planes, because why not.

Change sub detection?

Add magical escape mode to subs and choose between 6 seconds of underwater spotting or just use the periscope.

Fix sub shotgun?

Nope, make torpedoes accelerate slowly like some wind up toy, with damage magically increasing with range.

Expecto Torpdo! I cast magic missile!

 

 

I'll be honest, I disagree. I really think these changes look good and will have the CV player have to think more and actual plan out their strategy more. I really feel like because Mir Korabli is looking like the better game WG is really going to start trying their hardest to make us happy. I think that it's amazing and I hope these changes are as good as they seem!

[Jakob Knight]

22 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

If it is not "in addition to" then WG will very quickly find that Hydro will almost always be selected because hydro is potentially useful in every match, not just matches with a submarine and that submarine is on the flank you are on.

 

Also, Hydro works at all depths, while the Sub Surv consumable fails once the Sub is surfaced.  It does have a much longer range, though, so it would give players who are truly paranoid about Subs something to help their nerves.

  

[MBT808]

41 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

This is why I LOVE this idea floated by me today (big props to @MBT808)in regards to AA interaction with the new "flight modes". 

Short and medium range AA only fire on planes in attack mode, but long-range AA (basically just flak bursts) can fire regardless of the flight mode. This would also help planes indirectly identify ship locations via flak puffs. Otherwise, if, say, DDs have their AA off, neither the plane nor the ship would be spotted (directly or indirectly).

So in other words, it'll be similar to how ASW planes are sometimes used in matches without subs. Spot the enemy ships indirectly via their active AA.

Thanks! @Sailor_Moon

Honestly, I feel like the flight mode shouldn't be completely immune to damage. Otherwise we run into a problem where CVs might just do one strike and just do what they do now. They'll essentially by pass the proposed mechanics of repeated attack AA power increase. Having total immunity to damage, is not a healthy option. If the passive spotting like this were to be implemented as the Reddit post suggests, then a CV could loiter over a fleet indefinitely and provide spotting info(to an obviously lesser degree compared to before).

So, while the mid and short range wouldn't engage, having the long range mounts being able to engage and deal their DPS+Flak would prevent a CV from loitering for extended periods of time. With the long range a constant threat, it prevent a CV from just following enemies around providing continuous spotting essentially.

Its still just theory crafting at this point till we see what WG have in mind.

[Wulf_Ace]

8 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

@Sailor_Moon

 

Its still just theory crafting at this point till we see what WG have in mind.

Judging on what I read tonight they dont have much sense in their mind as usual.

Mumbo jumbo on CV changes that even they dont understand.

Subs getting nerf to the bottom of the ocean.

They made easy changes so complicated and hard to actually implement.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

We don't know yet how the transition between the two mode is solved. Minimap  also exist.

And to be honest...... the fact that PT didn't warned people about being attacked by Cv's was also ,at least, very much the same thing.

Subs say hi. But I don't think that ALL AA will count. Only flak, me thinks And again, minimap.

Well...... I don't think is possible mechanics wise. IAnd it is s possible that the Cv would not be in control of his planes while travelling. Remains to be seen how that actually is solved.

 We don't know how the travelling will be implemented. It could be a "send planes to area" kinda thing.

Well...it has historical basis. But I'm in limbo about this. A Cv should be able to repeatedly strike the same ship for target priority reasons. However on the stream they gave the example of lone ships so.....we don't know much yet.

As for the other.... its not possible they, also act as sec guns and the module integration is deep in the game.

Don't think so. The deterrence effect of AA is not implemented. And again this was the lone ship example/reasoning.

Yet, this is NOT WowP. So....

 They could if like i said the travel is solved via some "go to area" command.

Not necessarily.

FYI,

Setting up attacks currently starts over 10km away from most targets.

The idea that CVs will only be able to see targets that are spotted by the team is a HUGE impact to target selection and is a serious nerf to damage output as being forced to snap attack is very much less efficient.

 

If a plane is in travel mode, it cannot spot ships shooting AA at them. This is the old problems with invisible firing...something WG has been careful to avoid in past plane / ship interactions for very good reasons.

 

Given WGs past history of developing CVs, I have very little confidence that waiting to share feedback would be a wise choice.

3 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Oh c'mon that's already a thing when you need to attack a DD with the AA turned off, and that's the most difficult scenario. Lining up attacks on BBs and CAs shouldn't be more difficult than that.

Again, it's very likely the same thing as a DD switching on and off the AA, it is already a thing in the game. My guess is if fires, you can spot it. 

Actually looks like a very nice consumable to gain situational awareness. More defensive oriented.

They could be buffed case by case if needed. But it is a double edged sword, my guess is spot-attack runs (you don't finish the attack and let the timer expire) will become a thing, so a longer attack time is not necessarily desired.

Maybe a bit heavy handed meassure, but consider the most annoying and hateful situation, the one that makes most people rage is when the CV focuses hard on you, until you die without any chance to do anything, simply because you spawned isolated or with little support. 

Yeah, it's weird... maybe something flare-like?  Why do you think it relates to missiles?

I don't think it would carry too much impact as the planes will still be able to see and attack ships spotted by allies. 

I think having more options is never bad. Opens the door for more meme sec spec CVs, and interesting playstyle options. Also may give something to do to guys being deplaned.

They will be launching more attack because you reduce the flight time to targets (the most boring part of playing CVs imo), also very likely you won't need to waste boost in the approach flight so you will have your full boost to spend on your attack runs. I think you are overstating the trouble presented for "not spotting your own attacks", you will be spotting your own attacks. Also consider the positives, you will be able to bypass AA screens at no cost in order to attack ships in the back. 

 

Lining up a proper attack on a BB or cruiser takes around 10km to do...

...the current air concealment of DDs is meant to expressly discourage a CV from attacking DDs AT ALL. Are you seriously suggesting that BBs and Cruisers be added to the list of ships CVs shouldn't attack?

LOL

That makes no sense.

Also the 'spot attack runs' is hilarious and shows you don't understand how attack runs currently work. If I could cancel out of an attack run, your idea might make sense...but I can't. I'm stuck in a too long but not long enough run that isn't taking me in a good place and negatively impacts my planes maneuverability.

The amount of time I spend attacking ships already spotted is only maybe about half the time. You ok with cutting damage output and rewards for CVs in half?

I can't bypass AA screens I can't see.

I can't make as many attacks because I can't set up proper runs.

I'm a CV main telling you the issues, and you are telling me I'm wrong out of ignorance.

Maybe, you should do what no one did during the CV rework, and ACTUALLY LISTEN TO CV CAPTAINS.

But no, the CV rework was fine...nothing stupid came out of that...

Back then it was all celebrations too that the big bad CVs were getting nerfed...and then 0.8.0 hit...

Edited December 15, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Its the same scenario as attacking a DD with the AA turned off, you make a first pass to locate the target and then start your second run pre lined to attack. Or you know, bait the enemy to shoot you and it will be proxy spotted. Then there's still the elephant in the room of fighter spotting and failing everything else, a buff to attack timers is not unreasonable. I would say CVs are far from being defenseless and more in line to what every other ship type experience in a regular basis.

The difference is that DDs can't shoot down planes...cruisers and battleships ABSOLUTELY can.

Many CVs don't have enough plane reserves to make multiple attacks runs on a single ship to only get one actual ordinance drop and have that be a beneficial encounter.

Plus, this is a major time loss as the maneuvering to get a good angle is a MAJOR PART OF THE FLIGHT TIME...flying to the strike area, contrary to popular non-CV main belief, is not a major part of playing the class.

Your proposal is a major cut in damage output...plus, destroys the very core design feature of the class, which is damage over time.

The whole list of changes as laid out by WG screams that they don't actually understand how the class is used...and are ignorant of the actual ramifications of the changes.

It's going to be 0.8.0 all over again.

Be careful what you wish for...

[Andrewbassg]

42 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

FYI,

Setting up attacks currently starts over 10km away from most targets.

The idea that CVs will only be able to see targets that are spotted by the team is a HUGE impact to target selection and is a serious nerf to damage output as being forced to snap attack is very much less efficient.

 

Well....one can't have a cake and also eat it. Cv's have spotting advantage over most ships, so naturally it is easier. The same thing could be said about most ships.

Besides, as the battle progresses most ships ARE spotted so...

46 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If a plane is in travel mode, it cannot spot ships shooting AA at them. This is the old problems with invisible firing...something WG has been careful to avoid in past plane / ship interactions for very good reasons.

 

I think the problem lies how spotting and seeing is used so interchangeably, by both us and also by them. Spotting should mean one thing, providing vision for the team. That's why I insist so many times on proper terminology. Avoids creating confusions.

As for the issue..... I don't think that they can separate vision (seeing) from spotting. And planes represent the Cv's actions, NOT the Cv itself, that being a huge difference.

56 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Given WGs past history of developing CVs, I have very little confidence that waiting to share feedback would be a wise choice.

Mmm..... they DID listened to the playerbase during the initial stages of sub implementation, only it lead to nowhere, mainly because THEY didn't had a clear vision. Later, they stopped caring altogether , for various reasons.

 

[Snargfargle]

Military guys will relate to this.

WOWS spotter plane pilots:

• We don't understand why you attack guys can't radio back the positions of the enemy ships you see flying to and from your target.

WOWS attack plane pilots:

• Not our MOS.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Snargfargle

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

20 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Besides, as the battle progresses most ships ARE spotted so...

Actually not so.

21 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

And planes represent the Cv's actions, NOT the Cv itself, that being a huge difference.

Given how much time the CV captain spends with his planes rather than his hull...I've argued OFTEN that the planes are the player, not the hull.

22 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Mmm..... they DID listened to the playerbase during the initial stages of sub implementation, only it lead to nowhere, mainly because THEY didn't had a clear vision. Later, they stopped caring altogether , for various reasons.

It seems clear that they don't have a clear vision for CVs yet...as they have just spent the blog talking about balancing the class by making a DOT core damage mechanic not be about repeated attacks.

Seriously, that is concerning illogicality.

My main thing here is to not just mindlessly rejoice that WG is aware of the issues and is trying to fix them...

...because the cynic in me wonders if they are just looking to break things so they can sell new 'solutions'.

[Type_93]

Anyone else think it’s great that WG actually concedes to all the crying over CVs and subs and starts to implement a way to appease the minority, and all it creates is more unhappiness within the targeted community?  

[Andrewbassg]

12 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Actually not so.

That's.... arguable. 🙂 

13 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Given how much time the CV captain spends with his planes rather than his hull...I've argued OFTEN that the planes are the player, not the hull.

That one not so. Only sinking the hull relegates the player to port. Even if "deplaned", the hull, ergo the player, can still cap. Like I said......actions.....

Ultimately, the planes are the equivalent of the guns and torpedo tubes of ships. They are all means of delivery. Deliver ammunition/ordnance on/to the target.

18 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It seems clear that they don't have a clear vision for CVs yet...as they have just spent the blog talking about....

Well yes. They made clear the intention, tho not the actual how.

19 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

....balancing the class by making a DOT core damage mechanic not be about repeated attacks.

Seriously, that is concerning illogicality.

I would say that NOW is the time to provide sensible and articulated points How........idk....

21 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

My main thing here is to not just mindlessly rejoice that WG is aware of the issues and is trying to fix them...

...because the cynic in me wonders if they are just looking to break things so they can sell new 'solutions'.

I know. We are discussing things. I'm not rejoicing either, tho......I would LOVE to hear what Ahskance would say now..... given our past debates 

 

And yes that's a possibility.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

23 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

Anyone else think it’s great that WG actually concedes to all the crying over CVs and subs and starts to implement a way to appease the minority, and all it creates is more unhappiness within the targeted community?  

I think this is an amusing attempt to smear reactions and criticism as unjustified unhappiness.

We are all satisfied that, AT LONG LAST, WG seems to be aware that there are significant problems... especially considering how long they vehemently denied the obvious truth.

However, bad solutions are still bad solutions.

We can be happy that an issue is finally recognized, and unhappy with the first pass proposals for solutions.

Of course, WG staff are not going to want to see that nuance...and will want to just discount constructive criticism as unjustified because it might require more work or a humble response.

So much for treating the playerbase with respect.

[Andrewbassg]

27 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

Anyone else think it’s great that WG actually concedes ...

it was inevitable and long overdue, which is...

 

27 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

....the crying over CVs and subs and starts to implement a way to appease the minority, and all it creates is more unhappiness within the targeted community?  

...the fault of crybabies, who defended the class at all costs, for "my precious" reasons, without ANY reasonable basis nor grounds.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Andrewbassg