Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[Frostbow]

On 12/15/2023 at 3:55 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Multiple times while reading it I had the realization that WG developers remain utterly clueless about how CV captains actually play the class.

I've heard exactly the same line from other non-CV players.

At least now that realization is no longer the exclusive domain of non-CV captains. LOL

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

I've heard exactly the same line from other non-CV players.

At least now that realization is no longer the exclusive domain of non-CV captains. LOL

It has been my realization ever since WG made the addition of strafing to the RTS fighters.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Example:  CV plane spotting capability is a concern for a portion of the player-base.
Experimental solution:  Reduce the aerial-detection radius of all ship types by 20%, and then play-test.
Then review the data and evaluate.
The K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle utilized, too, as I reckon it.

Well....no. No spotting whatsoever, not minimap, not in any way. Long ranged units should not be able to spot for the team in any way. There is the chat, there is the minimap pinging, if the Cv wishes/capable use that. The why is very simple, ships have associated risks related to their spotting capabilities, while cv;s have exactly none. it is the ultimate dishonesty to have that in a PvP game.

There you go.

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

What is your solution?  🙂 
I look forward to your response.  🙂 

It was and is very simple. 

Remove spotting by planes.

Implement the possibility for Cv's to take module dmg to their plane producing and plane handling capabilities, up to being, on rare occasions,  permanently crippled.

Restrict Cv's to see only =/+1 tier with exception of ops. That way AA can be meaningfully balanced. Not only that, but opens up the possibility to reinstate odd tier Cv;s in addition to what already exists.  In other words moar moneyz to make.

It can't be simpler than this.

Some people mentioned that AA mounts should be indestructible. HARD NO. The modules are part of the ships HP, it is impossible to do that without touching every single ship in the game and completely FUBAR previous existing balance. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Andrewbassg

"No spotting whatsoever" = no *team* spotting information?  Yes/No?
Otherwise the CV player is going to be looking at blank screen.  That gets boring quickly.  🙂 

The matchmaking of +/- 1 is something I'm willing to support. 
Tighter tier-spreads with matchmaking could make playing every ship a bit more fun and less daunting if up-tiered.

As for AA and sec-bat guns being indestructible, umm.... there's already a hull module for that.

Auxiliary Armaments Modification 1

125000

+100% to secondary battery survivability. +100% to AA mounts survivability.

Not available to submarines.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Upgrades#Auxiliary_Armaments_Modification.C2.A01

As for CV aircraft handling capabilities being affected by damage and being incapacitated or destroyed?
I'm willing to play-test that.
A direct hit to a hangar elevator, for example, would be "realism" and require a bit of skill/luck.
A hit to the "fuel pump" could prevent the re-fueling of aircraft (and could start a fire which would need to be dealt with).
That's merely two possibilities of real-life damage which could be modeled by the game.

In the RTS CV era, there was a Captain's Skill that allowed for aircraft to take-off even when the CV's flight deck was on fire (which would normally prevent aircraft from taking-off).  I don't think there is a "re-work" era skill to replace it, as the CV's have "built-in" capabilities which don't require such a skill (and there have been skill re-works since then, too).

Bringing back the odd-tiered CV's is a welcome notion, as far as I am concerned.
I still miss my Zuiho.

For the sake of discussion, I've got another question.  What if my planes score direct hits on a DD's torpedo launcher?

[Wolfswetpaws]

15 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I would not say no....
....to a Jutland-like event!! historical Jutland-like BIG brawl event. Might be interesting hehe 😅

We had the 12-versus-12 Battleship Brawl mode in the past.
It became a snooze-fest of lobbing projectiles from the maximum range of the BB's guns, all too quickly.
Ran-dumb-deadeye-2-point-oh.  🙂 

[Snargfargle]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As for AA and sec-bat guns being indestructible, umm.... there's already a hull module for that.

Auxiliary Armaments Modification 1

125000

+100% to secondary battery survivability. +100% to AA mounts survivability.

Not available to submarines.

I guess I'd forgotten that module existed! I'm always getting my secondaries knocked out by HE when playing my Massachusetts and when I really need them in the late game to take on a DD they are usually shooting one or two guns per side. Changing that now. LOL.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Itwastuesday said:

Yes, but I don't think most if any pvp games should cater to people who would like to bring a sniper rifle to a boxing match.

If you prevent the rifle from being loaded and the sniper from getting ammunition, then the rifle is merely a club.

[Wolfswetpaws]

47 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

It is not. Wedgie took over.

Otherwise ... 🙂 you have a very particular kind of ....."way"  🙂   ergo humor, which needs a bit of being used to 🙂 

I "know" you so I don't have problems with that  🙂  

Thanks for correcting the information I had a misunderstanding of (about who controls the kots event).
And thanks for your kind words.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I guess I'd forgotten that module existed! I'm always getting my secondaries knocked out by HE when playing my Massachusetts and when I really need them in the late game to take on a DD they are usually shooting one or two guns per side. Changing that now. LOL.

👍

[Andrewbassg]

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

"No spotting whatsoever" = no *team* spotting information?  Yes/No?

No spotting by planes. ZERO.

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Otherwise the CV player is going to be looking at blank screen.  That gets boring quickly.  🙂

I think you are confusing spotting with seeing. As I said spotting means providing vision (seeing) for the team.

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The matchmaking of +/- 1 is something I'm willing to support. 
Tighter tier-spreads with matchmaking could make playing every ship a bit more fun and less daunting if up-tiered.

Ermm...no. Not -/+ 1.  =/+1 and ONLY for Cv's.

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As for AA and sec-bat guns being indestructible, umm.... there's already a hull module for that.

No. All modules have their own HP. +100% doesn't mean that it can't reach zero. Which means destruction.

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As for CV aircraft handling capabilities being affected by damage and being incapacitated or destroyed?
I'm willing to play-test that.
A direct hit to a hangar elevator, for example, would be "realism" and require a bit of skill/luck.
A hit to the "fuel pump" could prevent the re-fueling of aircraft (and could start a fire which would need to be dealt with).
That's merely two possibilities of real-life damage which could be modeled by the game.

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

For the sake of discussion, I've got another question.  What if my planes score direct hits on a DD's torpedo launcher?

What is already happening 🙂 . The module gets either destroyed or damaged. And if not repaired in time.....it will start reloading from zero.

Cv's have three kind of planes, which would mean, obviously, three kind of modules  🙂 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

"No spotting whatsoever" = no *team* spotting information?  Yes/No?

No spotting by planes. ZERO.

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Otherwise the CV player is going to be looking at blank screen.  That gets boring quickly.  🙂

I think you are confusing spotting with seeing. As I said spotting means provdidng vision (seeing) for the team.

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The matchmaking of +/- 1 is something I'm willing to support. 
Tighter tier-spreads with matchmaking could make playing every ship a bit more fun and less daunting if up-tiered.

Ermm...no. Not -/+ 1.  =/+1 and ONLY for Cv's.

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As for AA and sec-bat guns being indestructible, umm.... there's already a hull module for that.

No. All modules have their own HP. +100% doesn't mean that it can't reach zero. Which means destruction.

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As for CV aircraft handling capabilities being affected by damage and being incapacitated or destroyed?
I'm willing to play-test that.
A direct hit to a hangar elevator, for example, would be "realism" and require a bit of skill/luck.
A hit to the "fuel pump" could prevent the re-fueling of aircraft (and could start a fire which would need to be dealt with).
That's merely two possibilities of real-life damage which could be modeled by the game.

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

For the sake of discussion, I've got another question.  What if my planes score direct hits on a DD's torpedo launcher?

What is already happening 🙂 . The module gets either destroyed or damaged. And if not repaired in time.....it will start reloading from zero.

 

Cv's have three kind of planes, which would mean, obviously, three kind of modules  🙂 

Thanks for clarifying.

Seems to me that I'll have to re-read the wiki on the game mechanics of how ship equipment/modules are assigned HP and how they can be damaged and how the various upgrade-modules can reduce the risk of damage and/or prevent damage.  🤔

I'm not sure what you intend to convey, when you wrote "Cv's have three kind of planes, which would mean, obviously, three kind of modules".  I think I'm missing some nuance?

[Wolfswetpaws]

Damage System
https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Damage_System

Armor Penetration
https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Armor_Penetration

Damage Saturation
https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Damage_Saturation

Modules
https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Modules

 @Andrewbassg

  

Edited December 16, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Andrewbassg]

25 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm not sure what you intend to convey, when you wrote "Cv's have three kind of planes, which would mean, obviously, three kind of modules".  I think I'm missing some nuance?

No 🙂 , no nuances. Generally speaking, ships have three kind of armament modules. Main guns, sec/AA mounts and torpedo tubes. Each of them, individually , have their own HP. Meaning if one has 2 torp tubes, each of them have their very own HP. Same for each sec/AA mount.

Not only that, but that HP is assigned by RNG at the start of the battle. At least for torp tubes edit AND sec/AA guns. There used to be even a mod, so people could know the number 🙂 

 

As Cv,s have three kind of planes, so......that would mean three modules. 🙂 

Edit:

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

15 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

No 🙂 , no nuances. Generally speaking, ships have three kind of armament modules. Main guns, sec/AA mounts and torpedo tubes. Each of them, individually , have their own HP. Meaning if one has 2 torp tubes, each of them have their very own HP. Same for each sec/AA mount.

Not only that, but that HP is assigned by RNG at the start of the battle. There used to be even a mod, so people could know the number 🙂 

 

As Cv,s have three planes so......that would mean three modules. 🙂 

Let's see if I understand you well-enough.
If we treat each CV squadron as a module, then such a module could be damaged by incoming ordnance that either penetrates to the hangar or hits planes while they're on-deck awaiting launch?

While I extol the notion in terms of "realism", it does sound a bit complicated to implement via programming.
Complicated, but not impossible.

~First thought. 
If one of the squadrons is airborne, then the planes at risk of damage via a "hull module" impact are only half of the total allotment of planes for that squadron (the other half being at risk of AA fire, perhaps).  Or some other proportional number of planes, according to in-game conditions (such as planes previously shot-down and the squadron is under-strength at that moment).
~Second thought. 
Essentially you've thought of a way to "destroy planes while they're grounded".  One could get in-range of hitting a CV's hull and potentially de-plane the CV's hull even if a CV player were AFK and didn't launch planes (by hitting the squadron module and damaging or destroying the planes).
~Third thought. 
The risk(s) may deter CV's from engaging in secondary-battery range gunfights.  (Granted, many CV players are already averse to brawling and swashbuckling adventures.  But this could worsen the trend, eh? 🙂 )
Personally I want to see more sec-bat brawling action involving CV's.  🙂 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[hipcanuck]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

We had the 12-versus-12 Battleship Brawl mode in the past.
It became a snooze-fest of lobbing projectiles from the maximum range of the BB's guns, all too quickly.
Ran-dumb-deadeye-2-point-oh.  🙂 

You've forgotten about the 12 vs 12 tirpitz battles, they were not boring. Everyone was in a rush to get to 6 km and try to torp someone.

I would like to see special weekends where 12v12's for each class is allowed should enough players be in the Q. 12 v 12 DD's would be snarling rats nest of ships and torps. Cruisers would be more of a cat and mouse game, but good rewards for a well played ship. BB's would likely be a snoozefest at T10, might be more interesting at T8. CV's would be funny....once.....brutal AA and so many fighters might make it unplayable.

When considering modifications to CV's, remember the primary reason (aside from selling premiums lol) for the CV rework was to make them more playable by the general population. Any attempt to make a challenging class harder to play will only punish those who already find CV's difficult, and clearly many do find CV's hard to play!! Too many complications will separate the 'men from the boys' even more so than now, those who struggle with a 40% WR will suffer and those who have a 50-60% WR will win even more.

[Gillhunter]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Let's see if I understand you well-enough.
If we treat each CV squadron as a module, then such a module could be damaged by incoming ordnance that either penetrates to the hangar or hits planes while they're on-deck awaiting launch?

While I extol the notion in terms of "realism", it does sound a bit complicated to implement via programming.
Complicated, but not impossible.

~First thought. 
If one of the squadrons is airborne, then the planes at risk of damage via a "hull module" impact are only half of the total allotment of planes for that squadron (the other half being at risk of AA fire, perhaps).  Or some other proportional number of planes, according to in-game conditions (such as planes previously shot-down and the squadron is under-strength at that moment).
~Second thought. 
Essentially you've thought of a way to "destroy planes while they're grounded".  One could get in-range of hitting a CV's hull and potentially de-plane the CV's hull even if a CV player were AFK and didn't launch planes (by hitting the squadron module and damaging or destroying the planes).
~Third thought. 
The risk(s) may deter CV's from engaging in secondary-battery range gunfights.  (Granted, many CV players are already averse to brawling and swashbuckling adventures.  But this could worsen the trend, eh? 🙂 )
Personally I want to see more sec-bat brawling action involving CV's.  🙂 

Isn't that what happens when you get a turret or torpedo launcher destroyed? I would think that destroying planes while they are grounded would be a priority.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Gillhunter said:

Isn't that what happens when you get a turret or torpedo launcher destroyed? I would think that destroying planes while they are grounded would be a priority.

Oh, I don't deny it would be a priority.
And very "realism".

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

You've forgotten about the 12 vs 12 tirpitz battles, they were not boring. Everyone was in a rush to get to 6 km and try to torp someone.

I would like to see special weekends where 12v12's for each class is allowed should enough players be in the Q. 12 v 12 DD's would be snarling rats nest of ships and torps. Cruisers would be more of a cat and mouse game, but good rewards for a well played ship. BB's would likely be a snoozefest at T10, might be more interesting at T8. CV's would be funny....once.....brutal AA and so many fighters might make it unplayable.

When considering modifications to CV's, remember the primary reason (aside from selling premiums lol) for the CV rework was to make them more playable by the general population. Any attempt to make a challenging class harder to play will only punish those who already find CV's difficult, and clearly many do find CV's hard to play!! Too many complications will separate the 'men from the boys' even more so than now, those who struggle with a 40% WR will suffer and those who have a 50-60% WR will win even more.

Personally, I'm fond of CV-versus-CV brawling.
The rest of what you wrote is food-for-thought.

[Andrewbassg]

15 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Let's see if I understand you well-enough......

.......

No...... I meant specifically plane regeneration, because it could be made to be  similar to the other ship's modules.

Obviously if the planes are in the air...they are in the air. Only AA have then relevancy. 🙂 

19 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While I extol the notion in terms of "realism", it does sound a bit complicated to implement via programming.

I don't think that is more complicated then what they are proposing. 🙂 

20 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

~Third thought. 
The risk(s) may deter CV's from engaging in secondary-battery range gunfights.  (Granted, many CV players are already averse to brawling and swashbuckling adventures.  But this could worsen the trend, eh? 🙂 )
Personally I want to see more sec-bat brawling action involving CV's.  🙂 

Well......other then "meme reasons"...., I see no reasons to do that 🙂. Is a bit akin to when DD's are vocal proponents to capture the red "home cap" in ranked, coz  for sure they wont be the ones who do the ......actual pushing 

 Btw I installed the aforementioned mod

 

🙂 

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

4 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

Yes. But FLAMU is all about the "gotcha" - he completely overlooked the fact CV secondaries are balanced by having very low range.
Then there was his look at CV damage numbers (averages) - only looking at the servers (EU?) top 10 players in Hakuryu. When has anything been balanced to the top 10 unicums performance? How about comparing those numbers against the top 10 Yamato players average damage in Yamato? Or ... name any other ship that performs well in the hands of a unicum.

Sure, Flamu often has valid things to say. But also often all he does is stir the rage pot to generate clicks/subs (ie Money) for his channel.

I think the range is of less importance since it will pretty much be a last resort, defense against a yolo rushing DD in this case. I dont think the thought was they were gonna attack surface ships at 14+ km range with them.

Looking at the top 10 or whatever he was doing is of course just a piece of the big picture but also considering the skill level of the majority pf the player base, looking at the mid section of players could also be a bit misleading. In this case at least you can see the potential of a ship and not what a 45 % guy pushing the W-key gets out of it.

But I agree, with Flamu you have to take the good with the bad, he has some of the best skill and experience in this game but also makes his paycheck out of bashing WG (and usually they deserve it).

 

But also looking at Flambass video and also the really confusing Dev blog you gotta admit, WG REALLY has to do SUCH a backwards, roundabout, confusing way when they try to do this balancing.

As Flamu mentions, they could just have done Only minimap spotting, a mechanic that is already implemented and works in the game and something the playerbase has been asking for many years, but instead they try a way that would make a NASA engineer go ...."Huuh!?!" .. and lets face it, the guys coding WOW isn't NASA engineers (example Flamu mentioned when they just tried to implement a new camara angle and botched up multiple shooting/aiming mechanics in the game). So question is how many new bugs will all these new balances create? And for how many update cycles will we all become unpaid testers to their weird mechanics testings?

They pretty much looking at changing up everything from AA on all classes, mechanics with flight of planes, spotting mechanics, new strange consumables (that no one will figure out how they actually work) etc etc etc. Im not hopeful towards how all this will get to work.

[Andrewbassg]

22 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

I would like to see special weekends where 12v12's for each class is allowed should enough players be in the Q. 12 v 12 DD's would be snarling rats nest of ships and torps. Cruisers would be more of a cat and mouse game, but good rewards for a well played ship. BB's would likely be a snoozefest at T10, might be more interesting at T8. CV's would be funny....once.....brutal AA and so many fighters might make it unplayable.

 

Yes. 🙂  Proposed that for years. When they finally implemented it, they did it in brawls 😞 

But I meant specifically "Jutland Weekend" or "Tin Can Weekend", coz extended periods will depopulate randoms from those classes......Wedgie almost never listens, coz they "know better"......

Well......

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

26 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Personally, I'm fond of CV-versus-CV brawling.
The rest of what you wrote is food-for-thought.

Remember the CV only brawls?

That was a lot of fun...until people started gaming the rewards...

...but it was still a lot of fun.

Good times.

[ArIskandir]

3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Remember the CV only brawls?

That was a lot of fun...until people started gaming the rewards...

...but it was still a lot of fun.

Good times.

I've always thought a CV vs CV battlegroup mode would be a lot of fun. Lets say a 3vs3 with each player having 3-4 bots escorts sailing in a fixed defensive pattern around them. Would be fun!

[Wolfswetpaws]

50 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Remember the CV only brawls?

That was a lot of fun...until people started gaming the rewards...

...but it was still a lot of fun.

Good times.

Yep.  I participated.  🙂 

[Sailor_Moon]

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

For now. And people also woudn't take the relevant modules.

*SOME* people wouldn't...

Yeah true, they're not accurate, and they don't have high pen, but they fire pretty fast and actually have reasonable range lols! Doesn't damage the CV build itself TOO much to build into'em. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

So question is how many new bugs will all these new balances create?

I have to admit, I'm concerned with how...abusable....the "Duo-flight mode" mechanic seems to be. Of course, we won't know anything further about it till testing starts, but IF you can swap freely between the modes, that could break the game. Go in attack mode, attack, swap to flight mode, avoid AA, get out of AA range, swap to attack mode, rinse and repeat. At that point, AA literally wouldn't matter AT ALL. In short, it would be so much worse than what we've got right now (and it's pretty terrible even now).

But with that said, there's a high chance it WON'T be like that, because it'll break the game, and Wargaming will be monitoring for that level of breakage....hopefully. 😅