Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, Mutsu_Man said:

I am not gonna lie. Seeing the "CV is fine", "gitgud" crowd cry tears even before this is in testing is a) very predictable and b) quite hilarious. 

Cant say I care that much anymore but maybe "GITGUD" ? 

CV players remember such sentiments from when CV's were nerfed with changes to the rocket-attack sequences.

Personally, I learned how to use torpedoes to accomplish what the rocket planes could no longer do effectively.

Care to tell me which ship type that you play was so significantly changed in its method of attack?

 

[Pugilistic]

Minimap spotting is more intuitive, simpler, and (least importantly) reflects reality. 

The problem is that it makes people pay attention the minimap, which WG believes we cant do. 

[ArIskandir]

10 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The problem with limiting spotting to only the attack run is that doing such would limit CV spotting to the point of effectively eliminating it. I am nowhere close to what many might call a “CV apologist,” etc, and even I can recognize that such a change would be too extreme.

As I said before, I think this is a "sky is falling" scenario... The CVs will still be very much able to spot on demand by initiating "attack mode", and nothing has been said about fighter spotting. Imagine you had the same ability to activate Radar or Hydro on demand... 

Spotting on demand is only a downgrade because it comes from Spotting Always, by itself is a very strong tool. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

47 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I’m wondering if this isn’t the result of WG’s typical translation/“miscommunication” issues, because these types of changes would be incredibly crippling for a lot of CVs.

“Travel mode” where planes run full speed and are immune to standard AA fire but can’t spot surface ships sounds a lot like planes cruising at higher altitudes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is implemented as a mirror reflection of subs running at depth (where they have limited spotting but are immune to standard sources of damage), with “attack mode” being simply the standard CV movement mechanics we currently have, but with nerfed speed. CVs would be forced to choose between strike speed (“travel mode”) or spotting utility (“attack mode”) as they move to strike their targets. That seems like a much more rational approach than limiting CV spotting to only the attack run.

This would actually make some sense...

23 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Imo, the "CV relying on other ships to attack" thing is being overhyped... very likely some attack time values will need to be adjusted, maybe some odules and skills too, but overall CVs will still be perfectly able to attack by themselves. The mechanics of the attack probably will vary a bit, requiring using more boost for brakes instead of going faster, but I don't see major issues lining up strikes. 

Of course some details will need to be adjusted, for example is very unlikely the attack routine for DBs remain unchanged, but I don't see significant problems that can't be solved by adjusting the timers of the different actions.

I'm more worried about the impact over AA effectivenes. For this idea to properly work, it will need to have both the attack  and attack preparation times increased, and some form of cancel attack without having to wait for the full attack time

Despite actual CV mains telling you that the change will seriously impact strike preparation, you persist in thinking it won't be a problem...based on what?

Do you play CV often, in randoms or ranked?

15 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The problem with limiting spotting to only the attack run is that doing such would limit CV spotting to the point of effectively eliminating it. I am nowhere close to what many might call a “CV apologist,” etc, and even I can recognize that such a change would be too extreme.

The way I see it, what was presented has to be a half-baked idea (possibly explaining the nervousness of the presenters) because there are so many obvious ripple effects of such major changes.

Exactly.

Never mind that the concealment balancing for literal YEARS has been based around air spotting being part of the meta...

Concealment changes

AA changes

Strike methods changes

DPS changes because CVs aren't supposed to be DOT based anymore...

All of this majorly affects premium ships too. Will WG be giving out refunds to those who want it?

There is A LOT to be nervous about.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

As I said before, I think this is a "sky is falling" scenario... The CVs will still be very much able to spot on demand by initiating "attack mode", and nothing has been said about fighter spotting. Imagine you had the same ability to activate Radar or Hydro on demand... 

Spotting on demand is only a downgrade because it comes from Spotting Always, by itself is a very strong tool. 

The game concealment system is based around spotting always.

Are you in favor of rebalancing all ship concealment metrics now that spotting gets changed to limited spotting duration after a delay to get in place?

[Snargfargle]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Care to tell me which ship type that you play was so significantly changed?

The thing I have always found frustrating about CVs is that I have to re-learn them every couple of months due to patches, and this has been going on since 2019!

Speaking of CVs, check out this two CVs per side match I played just now. All ships were tier VIII-IX -- you don't see that much anymore.

[ArIskandir]

32 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Despite actual CV mains telling you that the change will seriously impact strike preparation, you persist in thinking it won't be a problem...based on what?

Do you play CV often, in randoms or ranked?

I barely play CVs in PvP because I don't find it particularly challenging and I seriously dislike the "moral" effect on my targets, it is clear when someone feels frustrated for lack of agency.

It doesn't mean I don't have a clue on how to play them and the mechanics involved, I have played all the CV lines extensivelly on the different PvE modes available. From a mechanical PoV there's nothing new PvP offers to the interaction. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by ArIskandir

[ArIskandir]

23 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The game concealment system is based around spotting always.

Are you in favor of rebalancing all ship concealment metrics now that spotting gets changed to limited spotting duration after a delay to get in place?

The fact that spotting dynamics works fine in matches without CVs is clear proof that even if CV spotting were fully impeded it wouldn't cause any issue for the rest of the ship types. There's zero urgent need to rebalance ship concealment just because CV spotting is made conditional. 

[Jakob Knight]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As you point out, this could be a language/translation issue.  Essentially poor writing?

Still, as @Verytis mentioned in another post, how to we "switch" altitudes?

And what if I *want* my planes to perform spotting and risk getting hit by flak?  🙂 

 

This is the flaw in thinking this will be a selectable mode of travel.  If a CV player can choose to maintain their spotting ability simply by giving up the bonus speed, it does not address the point of the change as CVs will continue to spot and work as they do now.  It would simply be an optional 'boost mode' rather than an adjustment to CV spotting ability.

 

For it to be a change in spotting ability, it must both be the default means of CV plane travel and not discardable except for extremely short durations at cost.  This lends credence to it being the attack phase currently in use when a squadron initiates an attack run and is locked on course rather than a mode that can be maintained during normal flight.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Sailor_Moon]

5 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

Never underestimate the ability of WoWs to muck things up.

You seem to forget who you're reminding....

I am well-aware of this fact. :P

[Jakob Knight]

12 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The fact that spotting dynamics works fine in matches without CVs is clear proof that even if CV spotting were fully impeded it wouldn't cause any issue for the rest of the ship types. There's zero urgent need to rebalance ship concealment just because CV spotting is made conditional. 

 

It works fine for all other ships -but- the CV.  That's fine as long as the only gameplay that matters to you is non-CV gameplay, but what does that do to a CV player's experience of the game, especially when their team refuses to close on the enemy to obtain spotting?

Currently, players in a game with a CV present rely on that CV to do the majority of their spotting and the game has been engineered with CV spotting in mind.  Reverse the dependency relationship and how will games progress when the surface units and Subs will be required to spot for the CV players to engage anything not right next to them?

 

[ArIskandir]

4 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

It works fine for all other ships -but- the CV.  That's fine as long as the only gameplay that matters to you is non-CV gameplay, but what does that do to a CV player's experience of the game, especially when their team refuses to close on the enemy to obtain spotting?

 

I'm starting to sound like a broken record...

57 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

As I said before, I think this is a "sky is falling" scenario... The CVs will still be very much able to spot on demand by initiating "attack mode", and nothing has been said about fighter spotting. Imagine you had the same ability to activate Radar or Hydro on demand... 

Spotting on demand is only a downgrade because it comes from Spotting Always, by itself is a very strong tool. 

CVs will remain very much able to spot and attack their own targets, there will be good reasons to focus your attacks on already spotted ships, but attacking on your own will still be possible. 

10 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Currently, players in a game with a CV present rely on that CV to do the majority of their spotting

Well, people gets lazy when they get everything served on a silver platter. It isn't like there'll be no spotting at all going on... if anything, Subs more than fill whatever theoretical spotting deficiency left by CVs spotting less. 

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Well, history shows such "Just won't fit" creations were created and used and thus "fit" into reality.

I imagine plenty of "putting our thinkin' cap on" activity was done by those responsible for military planning and procurement of equipment once they learned more about what they were up against.

The "we need bigger maps" sentiment is something I can agree with you on, though.
Every match is like a "Taffy 3" or "close air-support mission" situation for CV's, as things are now (and have been for a long time), in my opinion.

Appreciate the reply and in having a "good discussion"  in disagreement...

Let me say this for you to think about:  a word has several nuances and meanings;  while,  math is succinct and finite in meaning..... 

Complexity in "systems" happens all of the time and some of us actually work/study/resolve issues in that genre...  You can only cram so much complexity into a small space/culture before you start spending 5 or 10x the cost firefighting the disasters/conflicts/out right aggression those tightly packed people react to....  Sorry, we're so saturated with conflict the dissimilar weapons create, all we are doing is firefighting negativity and angst they are creating....which, creates even more problems....  It will end in player conflict;  and,  in mature games, that is called the "exodus period" where the only available solution is to leave the game....   That is why many of us out in the real world are studying the History of Games....  To discern, quantify and create tools to measure:  when cultural thresholds are "ignited" by technology changes they can't accept in their everyday lives or adapt to (which is called adaptive friction...) - that, ignites some serious and sometimes violent changes....  In the human application of Wave theory, those violent events are actual wars.....  In business, market readjustments so massive, entire markets change...   Take the history of the Flash Drive as an example and focus on what it did to the data storage market and look at HP as a corporation "stuck" in a Wave event.....  

Well, I can't and don't want to be a Jeremiah-ish forum member but, that ^^^^^ is my opinion and in several other games I have played over the years, that ^^^^^ is spot on what happened.  Something about some guy named Santayana comes to mind, eh?!!!  I look forward to your response.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Asym

[Sailor_Moon]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I can't help but feel there are better ways to address the concerns of some players while preserving a fun and interesting playing environment.

Out of all of what you said there, I do believe THIS to be potentially true. I'm certain there are better ways of handling these issues. But then again, as I always say.....Wargaming will wargame. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We all just have to hope that the changes will address the issues present in the game, without messing the game up more. And yes, there is certainly a high possibility of that happening.

But....I remain cautiously optimistic.

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

But, I can't help feeling like I'm "calling a Spade, a Spade", here.  🙂

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I agree with that either. We honestly have NO idea what to call all of this, because nothing has been tested yet. With that said, I see them as interesting, potentially positive changes for the overall game balance, and you see it the opposite way, clearly. And that's fine. We won't know anything either way till testing commences.

 

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

And what if I *want* my planes to perform spotting and risk getting hit by flak?  🙂

And that's why I really think flak should hit planes regardless of their flight mode. This not only improves the usage of flak, but also indirectly lets both ships AND planes know where the location of each other is. If you see flak puffs, you know there's an enemy ship there. Much like using ASW planes to indirectly locate enemy  ships via their AA gunfire 🙂

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

@Ensign Cthulhu and others have said "Be careful what you wish for" on various occasions. 
And I think this is one of those occasions.

....Perhaps. It's certainly a possibility. Yet that is what it is, nothing more.

I'm going to be honest with you Wolf, one of the primary reasons I'm excited about all this isn't JUST for the changes announced (which I admit I'm rather excited for, especially the AA changes, that might put heavy AA ships back on the map, not sure though...we'll see).

Wargaming has told us repeatedly and vehemently that sub shotgunning wasn't a problem, despite evidence to the contrary. Now, you may not personally believe that, and that's fine, but the sheer fact that Wargaming has decided to address something (sub shotgunning) that they said they weren't going to address, is truly a breakthrough for potentially getting changes the playerbase have been asking for a while, be it mechanics or ship balance.

Besides, Wargaming knows they should "Never say never":

Thanks Chieftain. 😛

^{Although, to be fair, we don't know WHY the sudden change of heart....it could be dropping player count, who knows? But at least Wargaming seems to be (SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY) responding to issues in their game. Took'em 5 or more years, but....it's somethin' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯}

[Sailor_Moon]

22 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

It works fine for all other ships -but- the CV.  That's fine as long as the only gameplay that matters to you is non-CV gameplay, but what does that do to a CV player's experience of the game, especially when their team refuses to close on the enemy to obtain spotting?

Currently, players in a game with a CV present rely on that CV to do the majority of their spotting and the game has been engineered with CV spotting in mind.  Reverse the dependency relationship and how will games progress when the surface units and Subs will be required to spot for the CV players to engage anything not right next to them?

 

I think we need to think about it the good ol' fashioned Wargaming way: power budget. Let's say we allow CVs to keep FULL spotting power. They can also do battleship-level damage, they have perks and advantages not available to other ships. Just as the main battery power would have to suffer to buff secondaries or AA, something's gotta give on CVs. They're simply too good. Wargaming has decided to drop the spotting power (which is definitely a very powerful tool for CVs, arguably THE most powerful tool). But what would Wargaming adjust if CVs were to retain their spotting power?

Honestly, I don't mind if CVs retain their spotting power, but then their damage would have to decrease. They would become true support units. Spotting, applying abilities to help the team, consistent, lower damage-dealing as the secondary role. So in short, maybe what the Support CVs are supposed to be, but across the board, for all CVs.

What do you think of that? 🤔

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

The thing I have always found frustrating about CVs is that I have to re-learn them every couple of months due to patches, and this has been going on since 2019!

Welp, this IS World of Warships....we're ALWAYS learning and re-learning in this game lols! Soooo many changes, so many added gimmicks/mechanics 🙃

[Verytis]

41 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

This is the flaw in thinking this will be a selectable mode of travel.  If a CV player can choose to maintain their spotting ability simply by giving up the bonus speed, it does not address the point of the change as CVs will continue to spot and work as they do now.  It would simply be an optional 'boost mode' rather than an adjustment to CV spotting ability.

 

For it to be a change in spotting ability, it must both be the default means of CV plane travel and not discardable except for extremely short durations at cost.  This lends credence to it being the attack phase currently in use when a squadron initiates an attack run and is locked on course rather than a mode that can be maintained during normal flight.

^This better explains one of my problems with the proposed changes.

 

If you can now transition between the 2 modes freely, the CV is actually gaining options.

They can utilise "travel" mode as a means to bypass certain AA ships, and/or simply to travel faster to their targets when spotting is not needed. This will improve their dmg output.

While the CV can also just use "attack" mode for regular duties like they currently do.

[Nav999]

I am impressed by all the changes being made to the CVs and Subs to better assimilate them into game play. As a proud owner of several of these ships I will throw my 2 cents worth in for consideration and include the hybrid BBs as well.

First the solution: Install two 21 point captains, one to drive the ship/boat and one to handle the planes/torpedo's. My first flight experience from a carrier I took off,  flew to the cap and promptly torpedoed my teams ship in the cap (no one said a thing about torpedo's not being for close quarters use}. On my second flight from the carrier my team was chasing a ship so I flew over there and joined the action by bombing our lead ship in the chase. These actions will get you bad karma and information about where your head is stored. My third flight went much better. I flew around all game spotting and moving the ship until the end of the game when the enemy ship trying to sink me was destroyed by my ships guns.

As for the hybrid BB, I discovered the Nebraska in my port yesterday and took it out for the Snowflake. After about 75% of the way through the battle I fired a gun salvo at the approaching Cruiser and decided I would go for a flight. After take off I headed for the Cruiser, dropped my bombs on it and headed back to the ship. Evidently while I was gone the 2 BBs in the area sank my ship ( so much for all the warnings that were popping up during the flight).

As for the Subs my experiences were a little different. On my first mission I was on the surface and headed for the cap just like I do with any other ship. As I neared the cap I was looking at the surface ships through the periscope and watching the mini-map when someone/something sank me. On the second outing I decided the surface strategy wasn't going to work so I decided an underwater approach would be better when I approached the cap. Sure enough as I neared the cap I dove to 20m and using the periscope I discovered half of the surface ships had disappeared! I also discovered claustrophobia set in at an alarming rate! Then I was sunk by something.

In conclusion you can see why I think having two 21 point captains is the solution to the Carrier, Sub and Hybrid issues.

[Jakob Knight]

13 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I think we need to think about it the good ol' fashioned Wargaming way: power budget. Let's say we allow CVs to keep FULL spotting power. They can also do battleship-level damage, they have perks and advantages not available to other ships. Just as the main battery power would have to suffer to buff secondaries or AA, something's gotta give on CVs. They're simply too good. Wargaming has decided to drop the spotting power (which is definitely a very powerful tool for CVs, arguably THE most powerful tool). But what would Wargaming adjust if CVs were to retain their spotting power?

Honestly, I don't mind if CVs retain their spotting power, but then their damage would have to decrease. They would become true support units. Spotting, applying abilities to help the team, consistent, lower damage-dealing as the secondary role. So in short, maybe what the Support CVs are supposed to be, but across the board, for all CVs.

What do you think of that? 🤔

 

Well, their damage ability was already reduced and converted to a DOT model in the original Rework, so there is that.  It does seem like they have decided to put all CVs into a support position in the game.  I'm not necessarily against that, but I do remember that the changes to DD torpedoes and the introduction of Radar (and most recently the addition of ASDC) centered around not making any unit in the game dependent upon others to fight effectively, so this would be a new tact for their direction of game development.  Reduced damage would be preferable to not being able to effectively do any damage at all.

 

38 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I'm starting to sound like a broken record...

CVs will remain very much able to spot and attack their own targets, there will be good reasons to focus your attacks on already spotted ships, but attacking on your own will still be possible.

 

That seems like an assumption rather than a fact.  The way the intent and wording of the article reads, a CV will only be able to spot by either direct observation by itself being in range to do so (meaning it itself is engaged in direct combat) or by teammate spotting.  The planes will have to initiate an attack run to gain spotting info, which locks them on course and they will lose it as soon as the attack run ceases.  If on its own, this means the CV will have to initiate blind attacks and hope there is something directly in front of them and in range to strike.

 

We will see how this plays out.

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

47 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

CVs will remain very much able to spot and attack their own targets, there will be good reasons to focus your attacks on already spotted ships, but attacking on your own will still be possible. 

This is incorrect. The actual decision to start an attack is BASED ON A SPOTTED TARGET.

If the CV can no longer spot for itself, then it cannot actually know when to make the attack run start.

[AdmiralThunder]

Not sure if anyone has covered this yet (too many posts to read) but I hope WG adjusts spotting damage task requirements now that they are massively limiting CV spotting. I am fine with the change just stop the 500K+ spotting damage mission tasks now that the best ships to do it in got their ability to nerfed.

[ArIskandir]

6 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

If on its own, this means the CV will have to initiate blind attacks and hope there is something directly in front of them and in range to strike.

Which is entirely possible now and common order of business when dealing with sneaky DDs. With the caveat against CA and BBs you'll have a window of 6+ kms to line up attacks instead of the 2-3km provided on sneaky DDs. Since I've been hit and I've had hitted DDs using such methods I know for a fact it is possible, not an assumption.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

39 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Out of all of what you said there, I do believe THIS to be potentially true. I'm certain there are better ways of handling these issues. But then again, as I always say.....Wargaming will wargame. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We all just have to hope that the changes will address the issues present in the game, without messing the game up more. And yes, there is certainly a high possibility of that happening.

But....I remain cautiously optimistic.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I agree with that either. We honestly have NO idea what to call all of this, because nothing has been tested yet. With that said, I see them as interesting, potentially positive changes for the overall game balance, and you see it the opposite way, clearly. And that's fine. We won't know anything either way till testing commences.

 

And that's why I really think flak should hit planes regardless of their flight mode. This not only improves the usage of flak, but also indirectly lets both ships AND planes know where the location of each other is. If you see flak puffs, you know there's an enemy ship there. Much like using ASW planes to indirectly locate enemy  ships via their AA gunfire 🙂

....Perhaps. It's certainly a possibility. Yet that is what it is, nothing more.

I'm going to be honest with you Wolf, one of the primary reasons I'm excited about all this isn't JUST for the changes announced (which I admit I'm rather excited for, especially the AA changes, that might put heavy AA ships back on the map, not sure though...we'll see).

Wargaming has told us repeatedly and vehemently that sub shotgunning wasn't a problem, despite evidence to the contrary. Now, you may not personally believe that, and that's fine, but the sheer fact that Wargaming has decided to address something (sub shotgunning) that they said they weren't going to address, is truly a breakthrough for potentially getting changes the playerbase have been asking for a while, be it mechanics or ship balance.

Besides, Wargaming knows they should "Never say never":

Thanks Chieftain. 😛

^{Although, to be fair, we don't know WHY the sudden change of heart....it could be dropping player count, who knows? But at least Wargaming seems to be (SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY) responding to issues in their game. Took'em 5 or more years, but....it's somethin' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯}

The realization by WG that they have to do something about CV spotting and sub shotgunning is indeed reason for optimism.

My hope is that the developers aren't too stuck on these ideas they have proposed...and would be willing to tweak them in maybe major but good ways, to make this all be better.

Unfortunately, my experience with WG counsels me to be wary, as they have not been able to manage changes of this complexity well in the near or long term.

I am a glass half empty kind of guy.

32 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I think we need to think about it the good ol' fashioned Wargaming way: power budget. Let's say we allow CVs to keep FULL spotting power. They can also do battleship-level damage, they have perks and advantages not available to other ships. Just as the main battery power would have to suffer to buff secondaries or AA, something's gotta give on CVs. They're simply too good. Wargaming has decided to drop the spotting power (which is definitely a very powerful tool for CVs, arguably THE most powerful tool). But what would Wargaming adjust if CVs were to retain their spotting power?

Honestly, I don't mind if CVs retain their spotting power, but then their damage would have to decrease. They would become true support units. Spotting, applying abilities to help the team, consistent, lower damage-dealing as the secondary role. So in short, maybe what the Support CVs are supposed to be, but across the board, for all CVs.

What do you think of that? 🤔

I was always wanting to play my CV in a supporting role.

[ArIskandir]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is incorrect. The actual decision to start an attack is BASED ON A SPOTTED TARGET.

If the CV can no longer spot for itself, then it cannot actually know when to make the attack run start.

There's nothing preventing you to start an attack run to gain situational awareness, acquire targets and line up your "real" subsequent attack. You can spot for yourself on demand, the claim you can no longer spot is misgiven.

Edited December 15, 2023 by ArIskandir

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Which is entirely possible now and common order of business when dealing with sneaky DDs. With the caveat against CA and BBs you'll have a window of 6+ kms to line up attacks instead of the 2-3km provided on sneaky DDs. Since I've been hit and I've had hitted DDs using such methods I know for a fact it is possible, not an assumption.

Nope.

The DD can't shoot your planes down...so you spot him, then circle round and make the 'blind' attack based on his last VERY RECENT trajectory.

That is not at all what WG is proposing. WG is preventing you from even seeing him ever UNLESS you are already in the locked attack mode.

You can't fly over and get a sense of his direction. You actually have to make an actually blind guess as to where he is.

With respect, your limited experience facing human captained DDs is leading you to a false assumption.