Is the patch today the CV changes?

[Nevermore135]

Aerial spotting should follow the model already established for radar spotting: ships are spotted on the minimap right away but there is a notable delay before the ships render for any teammates. That change addressed a lot of the pain surrounding ships caught out and focused by unexpected spotting, so there is no reason something similar shouldn’t work for CVs. Players were also able to wrap their head around that mechanic easily enough, so it would be a lot more intuitive than the garbage that WG has proposed.

[Ferdinand_Max]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While it does depend upon a player having "half a brain", the competition for "vision control" between two or more CV's involves using fighters and AA to shoot-down the other team's planes which are performing spotting.

The matchmaker provides each team with an equal number of CV's at the start of the battle.
Granted, after spawning, the match will depend upon how well each team member plays.

So, for CV's, deploying fighter planes which can spot the opposing team while not getting too quickly destroyed is one option.
Another option is to use one of the attack-capable squadrons (rocket planes, bombers, torpedo planes) to loiter close enough to spot the opposing ship(s).
And, there is the occasional "accidental" spotting that gets done while flying towards a previously designated target.
Example:  Torpedo planes enroute towards a battleship (one with half-a-brain, go figure) fly over or near enough to detect a different ship that was otherwise undetected.  "Whoops?  Where'd that AA Cruiser come from?!?"
I think you get the idea.  🙂 

Anyway, just as there is parity within matchmaking for other ship types, there is parity for CV's.
Some players learn to play CV's better than others.
The good CV's will keep their hulls moving and remain as close to the action as possible (to shorten their squadron's flight-time to the target) without getting spotted too much or too often.  (Side-note, my Kaga was sunk by a Shikishima, once upon a time.  So, yeah, there are risks with this sort of thing.)

If a CV sails their hull to a farthest corner of a map, they're likely increasing the time it takes the planes to fly to where they can scout for opponents and attack them.  Which means that CV is going to have a lower damage-per-minute output compared with the CV that is closer to the action.

The other aspect is how well they can hit targets.
Granted, hitting targets is every ships' job.  They may use different ordnance, but good aim makes a difference.
A player who misses too many of their attacks upon targets is arguably ineffective.
Frankly, I don't care what ship a person plays, if they not hitting targets or spotting targets so the team can hit the targets, then damage output race will be won by good marksmanship (all other things being equal).

As the Rifleman's Creed mentions, only hits count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed

 

So basically a CV game turns a game of friendly CV vs enemy CV with a bunch of fodder along for the ride to pad the CV scores...

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

So basically a CV game turns a game of friendly CV vs enemy CV with a bunch of fodder along for the ride to pad the CV scores...

That's how it's always been, that's naval warfare in the world war 2 era...

I've said it before, I'll keep saying it...

The moment somebody makes a world war 1 version of this game...the Exodus will be swift from here.

[Ferdinand_Max]

9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That's how it's always been, that's naval warfare in the world war 2 era...

I've said it before, I'll keep saying it...

The moment somebody makes a world war 1 version of this game...the Exodus will be swift from here.

Yeah, unlikely. Unless you think vast majority of players prefer no-risk brain-dead gameplay, in which case, do you really want them?

And this is an arcade shooter. You want World War 2 naval simulation, well, you've got Rule the Waves 2...

EDIT: Face it, if somebody wants to play a realistic simulation of naval warfare, they will not be playing World of Warships.

Edited Sunday at 01:45 PM by Ferdinand_Max

[Gaelic_knight]

@Daniel_Allan_Clark

i quote " The moment somebody makes a world war 1 version of this game...the Exodus will be swift from here."

not gonna stop spotting m8  , they used airships for spotting  and were experimenting with new designs of aircraft in WWI 

 German albatross 1915 ,  Curtiss seaplane 1914 , RN spotting airship  1915 

Edited Sunday at 02:06 PM by Gaelic_knight

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

So basically a CV game turns a game of friendly CV vs enemy CV with a bunch of fodder along for the ride to pad the CV scores...

I don't see it that way.
But, you're entitled to your opinion.

CV's will attempt to simultaneously use their own planes to spot the opposition while deploying their fighters to shoot-down opposing planes or deny areas of the map to them, in an effort to control which team can out-spot the other team.

Of course, with the recently proposed changes to CV spotting, this may all get thrown-out along with the proverbial baby and the bathwater.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

48 minutes ago, Gaelic_knight said:

@Daniel_Allan_Clark

i quote " The moment somebody makes a world war 1 version of this game...the Exodus will be swift from here."

not gonna stop spotting m8  , they used airships for spotting  and were experimenting with new designs of aircraft in WWI 

 German albatross 1915 ,  Curtiss seaplane 1914 , RN spotting airship  1915 

Technically, even surface ships used plane spotting from their own decks extensively in the 1920s and 1930s.

The reality is that expectations for how concealment should work in game are substantially at odds with how naval warfare was fought.

The problems with spotting go deeper than just planes.

The game really does need a concealment rework.

[ArIskandir]

9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The problems with spotting go deeper than just planes.

The game really does need a concealment rework.

The thing is, Concealment is the balance tool to 'equalize' ships of wildly different power. How else a DD could have any chance to be balanced against a BB?

[thornzero]

23 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The game really does need a concealment rework.

How would you change it? [Sorry if you already explained it elsewhere but I'm curious.]

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, thornzero said:

How would you change it? [Sorry if you already explained it elsewhere but I'm curious.]

What areas are WG staff willing to adjust?

[thornzero]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

What areas are WG staff willing to adjust?

The problem with the squeaky wheel getting the grease, is they are few in numbers and the potential changes affect everyone. So it becomes a 'careful what you wish for' situation.

This is part of the reason I could live with cv spotting to be just left alone. Fixing it may very well break it.

[Unlooky]

10 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

But any other ship type can cause that same effect also.

Absolutely. I call it griefing when I nuke some cruiser for 30k because of overmatch, or perma double fire a BB with Conqueror. Never claimed that it's exclusive to CVs, just an extraordinarily unfun experience for the victim.

[Ferdinand_Max]

17 hours ago, Unlooky said:

Absolutely. I call it griefing when I nuke some cruiser for 30k because of overmatch, or perma double fire a BB with Conqueror. Never claimed that it's exclusive to CVs, just an extraordinarily unfun experience for the victim.

I don't count that as griefing because 1) it is over quickly and 2) usually a consequence of a player making a mistake. Well, except for the Conqueror thing. That is griefing.

Death by CV is 1) a death by thousand cuts and 2) the only mistake is playing the game at all.

That is the difference.

Edited Monday at 09:36 AM by Ferdinand_Max

[GandalfTehGray]

21 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

What areas are WG staff willing to adjust?

In the hypothetical that they were willing to scrap the whole system and start fresh what would you do/not do? Everything from surface, air, underwater, consumables and proxy spotting is on the board for you to shape as you see fit. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said:

In the hypothetical that they were willing to scrap the whole system and start fresh what would you do/not do? Everything from surface, air, underwater, consumables and proxy spotting is on the board for you to shape as you see fit. 

Instead of spotted, not spotted...adjust dispersion based on the class of the ship. DDs get essentially improvements like what the concealment module and / or dazzle gives, for example...but with even greater effect.

Ship spotting is based on the view range of each ship / plane type based on their spotting equipment.

This would massively change the game, and require rebalancing of everything...

Obviously just an idea at this point, I'm not religiously tied to it.

😉

Edited Monday at 05:04 PM by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[ArIskandir]

7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Ship spotting is based on the view range of each ship / plane type based on their spotting equipment.

A BB packs more and bigger guns with longer range, more armor, more HP and longer view range... How would a DD stand a fighting chance against bigger, more powerful ships of they can't control the initiative through vision control?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

A BB packs more and bigger guns with longer range, more armor, more HP and longer view range... How would a DD stand a fighting chance against bigger, more powerful ships of they can't control the initiative through vision control?

If the battleship can't hit the DD with his main battery at longer range...why would he shoot at the DD?

I never said the change would preserve the current state of the game...in fact, I expect it would make major changes to the meta. I would also expect that most ships would need to be rebalanced with the effects of the changes in mind...potentially major changes in how certain ordinance works...etc.

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If the battleship can't hit the DD with his main battery at longer range...why would he shoot at the DD?

Consider if shooting a target has very low chances of hitting, even with 'perfect aiming', then it becomes an exercise in frustration and makes for a bad play loop... reward for well performed actions is required for an enjoyable game. Also, if you 'disable' Concealment and the ability to deliver stealth attacks, what would happen with torpedo attacks... how they would be effective if every attack is made in 'plain sight' at long range?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

26 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Consider if shooting a target has very low chances of hitting, even with 'perfect aiming', then it becomes an exercise in frustration and makes for a bad play loop... reward for well performed actions is required for an enjoyable game. Also, if you 'disable' Concealment and the ability to deliver stealth attacks, what would happen with torpedo attacks... how they would be effective if every attack is made in 'plain sight' at long range?

We are already in a bad play loop situation with spotting as it is now...you can hardly claim that as a reason not to explore other options.

😉

There are islands...there is smoke...torpedoes could be made harder to detect...plenty of ways to make it work...

But I hear the influence of WG staff in your response...'it's too much change'. It will be 'too hard' to do, so we shouldn't do it.

People are openly calling for the removal of 40% of the ship classes in the game...over a core game mechanic issue that is too much of a sacred cow to touch?

Matchmaking in NA is struggling to make matches for anything other than the highest tiers EVEN DURING PRIME TIME...and we are still tying ourselves to the current game model?

[Jakob Knight]

35 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

We are already in a bad play loop situation with spotting as it is now...you can hardly claim that as a reason not to explore other options.

😉

There are islands...there is smoke...torpedoes could be made harder to detect...plenty of ways to make it work...

But I hear the influence of WG staff in your response...'it's too much change'. It will be 'too hard' to do, so we shouldn't do it.

People are openly calling for the removal of 40% of the ship classes in the game...over a core game mechanic issue that is too much of a sacred cow to touch?

Matchmaking in NA is struggling to make matches for anything other than the highest tiers EVEN DURING PRIME TIME...and we are still tying ourselves to the current game model?

 

I think the problem comes in that we have a developed, established system that has been in use for many years now and is completely defined.  If you want to replace that, you have to have an equally defined alternative that offers clear advantages overall to switching to it.

 

Perhaps sitting down and completely defining the system you would replace it with, how it would function with each element in the game, its strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the current system, and any other additional modifications that would be required would do better in persuading others of the merits of what you have in mind?

 

 

Edited Monday at 07:45 PM by Jakob Knight

[ArIskandir]

33 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But I hear the influence of WG staff in your response...'it's too much change'. It will be 'too hard' to do, so we shouldn't do it.

People are openly calling for the removal of 40% of the ship classes in the game...over a core game mechanic issue that is too much of a sacred cow to touch?

Concealment IS kinda a 'sacred cow', it is at the root of everything so changing it would have very far reaching consequences. Tho my consideration isn't if it is 'too hard' or 'too much' but if the replacement system would be an actual improvement or not... that's what I don't see clearly. 

I honestly don't have issues with how the Concealment works in this game, I find it a creative solution to balancing extremely disimilar ship performances (how else a DD would be on par with a BB?), it is 'gamey' but at least it is simple. What you propose can also be interesting but lets be clear it wouldn't be just a 'rework' of a game system, more likely full fledged 'remake' of WoWS. 

[Musket22]

59 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I honestly don't have issues with how the Concealment works in this game, I find it a creative solution to balancing extremely disimilar ship performances (how else a DD would be on par with a BB?), it is 'gamey' but at least it is simple. What you propose can also be interesting but lets be clear it wouldn't be just a 'rework' of a game system, more likely full fledged 'remake' of WoWS. 

Things that bother me about 'concealment';

Let's start with the most eggregious - Islands/terrain not blocking detection by Radar or Sonar. Does terrain block line of sight for aerial detection? If not add that in too.

How about subs having a visual spotting range that is farther than surface ships with twice or more height advantage over the sub coning towers?

The peek-a-boo nature of ship visual sighting.

They can be well within the sighting range but blink in and out of sight.

Yeah, yeah it's an arcade game but still...

 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Musket22 said:

Let's start with the most eggregious - Islands/terrain not blocking detection by Radar or Sonar. Does terrain block line of sight for aerial detection? If not add that in too.

I'm with you on this part.  ^^^^
 

1 hour ago, Musket22 said:

How about subs having a visual spotting range that is farther than surface ships with twice or more height advantage over the sub coning towers?

Submarines are small, smaller than a DD.  So, of course they're harder to detect.

But, that does work both ways when we factor in the curvature of the Earth.  
Taller ships can put their lookouts and sensors up higher, so they (in theory) can see further before being obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
That said, big ships are easier to see (providing terrain and the curve of the Earth isn't blocking line-of-sight).

In-game, when a Submarine goes to periscope depth, it cannot visually detect other ships unless the sub is within the aerial detection radius of the ship in question.
Were you aware of that?
I think it's congruent with the principles you seem to be espousing.

The other thing is that WG/WOWs uses a fixed point on a ship to determine if it can be seen or not seen.
Usually this is the top of the tallest mast or something similar.
Block line of sight to that and Mumford the Magnificent magician says "Presto!" and the ship disappears.  😉 
 

Edited Monday at 10:54 PM by Wolfswetpaws

[Musket22]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Submarines are small, smaller than a DD.  So, of course they're harder to detect.

It's the sub being able to spot ships at greater range that I find wrong. 

IMO a sub doesn't sit high enough, when surfaced, to 'SEE' that far.

That a sub makes a smaller target when a ship is looking to spot the sub is also true. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I think the problem comes in that we have a developed, established system that has been in use for many years now and is completely defined.  If you want to replace that, you have to have an equally defined alternative that offers clear advantages overall to switching to it.

 

Perhaps sitting down and completely defining the system you would replace it with, how it would function with each element in the game, its strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the current system, and any other additional modifications that would be required would do better in persuading others of the merits of what you have in mind?

 

 

The trouble is that WG staff and most players are unwilling to even consider a concealment rework...even though that is what they are asking for...because it will change the game too much.

It's not worth the time to go into details which will be resented by WG staff because the idea is not from 'in house'.

All I'm doing is talking ideas to spur interest...but no one is interested.

Shrug.

It's hard to take the moaning about plane spotting seriously if concealment can't be changed.