CV last moved by…

[Kingpin]

It won't stop people griefing with the CV, it'll just create more moaning and attacks on players who have moved them to somewhere the armchair generals don't agree with

-1

First off, this isn't about rank or commanding a CV.  That's a different issue.  You don't have to take command or KEEP command to move it.  You can take command just long enough to move it, immediately give up command and have the same anonymity as those who don't take command.  So, that isn't the point.

The point is trying to encourage teamwork by letting people know who moved a CV on a certain course.  Yes, there will be gripers just as there always is in ALL gameplay in AH.  However, I firmly believe individual gripes are better than anonymous griefers.  The armchair generals are much easier to rationalize with than the pre-adolescent-level griefers.

To Coombz: I would think that you, of all people, as an excellent contrarian and devil's advocate, would be able to stick up for yourself by simply saying "I turned it because it was being bombed."  I've shut down some of Admiral Baba's rants just this way, with one short reply.  (Not to pick on Baba, as I do get along with him, and he tries his best for the side, so I don't think he'd mind my mentioning it.)

I'd rather see short exchanges like that, rather than the long rants that go on and on about "Who keeps turning the CV back into their shore battery?!" etc.  At which point even more people start turning the CV just to stir the pot.

If you're afraid of the "armchair generals" running roughshod over you, then simply don't move CV's.  If you can handle the heat, then take the helm.  

In addition, wouldn't those who like to draw phalluses like having their name assigned to their work?  

<S>
Ryno

[Kingpin]

DOUBLE POST DELETED

[waystin2]

This will net nothing but grief, not alleviate it.  -1 

[Kingpin]

This will net nothing but grief, not alleviate it.  -1  

Please explain why you think that, Waystin.  I respect your opinion, but would prefer to hear your reasoning.

I think what we have currently IS GRIEF.  The anonymity of CV control is currently being abused.  The proposal is not meant to completely alleviate the grief, but to put it in the open.

Text grief is fairly easily dealt with, isn't it?  Simple explanation first.  Squelch if needed.  Report if excessive.

How would it be any worse than it is now?

Feedback appreciated.

<S>

[Soulyss]

I can't help but think that this will cause more problems and witch hunts than anything else.  Imagine a new player just figures out that he/she can control a CV, does something with it that other players don't approve of and is suddenly confronted with howls of griefing, spying, etc.

[guncrasher]

I can't help but think that this will cause more problems and witch hunts than anything else.  Imagine a new player just figures out that he/she can control a CV, does something with it that other players don't approve of and is suddenly confronted with howls of griefing, spying, etc.

there's always gonna be a disagreement over what is the best use of a cv.  there was a disagreement over the cv I took control a couple of days ago.  I once we explained why we had the cv in the course that it was given the cv stopped being moved.  we used the cv to give us location of fighters when hitting strats plus the gunners had a field day also.  we leveled the rooks strats almost to zero.  after we rtb'd somebody else kicked me off the con and took control of it to direct it somewhere else.

I have many times taken control of a cv and sat on a gun turning it every which way to avoid bombers.  causing many to miss.  at the end the cv got sunk and got accused of letting it die.  it happens.  just like when you turn it to avoid bombers and some guys end up in the water and the whining starts.  but what can you do.

btw a bomber flying between 5 and 6k alt should have no excuse in not sinking a cv no matter how much you turn it.  and that is from experience.  I have sunk hundreds of cv's in b26's flying at that alt at full speed.  the ack will cause minimum damage, most damage is from gunner if they're any good at all.


semp

[icepac]

I can't even count the number of times some low score chump who is in a tank spawn camping 13 sectors away has control of a cv that get's quickly bombed to death.

If you want control of the CV, you should be on it.

If you leave to go somewhere else or even up a mission from it, it should automatically take away your ability to control it.

[Kingpin]

I can't even count the number of times some low score chump who is in a tank spawn camping 13 sectors away has control of a cv that get's quickly bombed to death.

If you want control of the CV, you should be on it.

If you leave to go somewhere else or even up a mission from it, it should automatically take away your ability to control it.

Yep.  This is one reason why I thought it was a good idea to have your name attached and a sense of accountability for moving a CV.

It's too bad so many long-time players have such little faith in this "community's" ability to communicate constructively.  Then again this is the AH forum, an easy place to lose any sense of "community".

[waystin2]

Please explain why you think that, Waystin.  I respect your opinion, but would prefer to hear your reasoning.

I think what we have currently IS GRIEF.  The anonymity of CV control is currently being abused.  The proposal is not meant to completely alleviate the grief, but to put it in the open.

Text grief is fairly easily dealt with, isn't it?  Simple explanation first.  Squelch if needed.  Report if excessive.

How would it be any worse than it is now?

Feedback appreciated.

<S>

I can only base it on my own CV control activities.  I rarely "take" command from someone unless they are ignoring serious danger to CV (Buffs, shore batts, PT boats, or other enemy cruiser fire).   In those instances I will do one of the following: change course to avoid buffs dropping on carrier, change course to move the carrier out of shore battery firing range/arc, change course to move away from PT spawns and PT boats, and finally I will either alter course to move carrier away from enemy cruiser fire or alter course so that all three cruiser 8" batteries can be brought to bear on an enemy fleet or town/field.  

All situations where the actions can be considered griefing by those who are operating on or near the carrier depending on the activity they are engaged in.  Examples: planes leaving or trying to land on the deck and enemy buffs are near their drop point, turn the carrier and someone will be upset.  Turning the group to bring all cruiser guns to bear on enemy fleet or fields also nets a lot of complaints.  It is very sound tactic to bring all guns to bear on a target, yet folks will consistently gripe about the decision to alter group course to make this happen (still scratching my head on this one).   Driving a carrier into shore battery fire and active PT spawns is good way to get the group sunk quickly.  I know this, because I have sunk a lot of CV's, cruisers and destroyers with shore batts and PT boats.  Again folks will gripe when the course is altered to protect the group.

Yes, I have been griped at for making those decisions, but as I said it is all about the carrier surviving, and using the guns to their utmost effectiveness.  So allowing every second guessing fellow (we all do it, I am doing it right here) who thinks they have a better idea to track such quick changes in course in order to find and expose what they think might be a griefer, adds nothing but more grief to the game.

<S>

Waystin2

[kvuo75]

waystin, it's because a pretty good percentage of people cannot actually fly good enough to take off from or land on a turning cv.

I almost posted it earlier, but that's my suspicion too.. someone turns cv to avoid bombers, then someone who needs it straight to take off a heavy 1d turns it back straight.

[Aspen]

I would rather leave it.  There's already plenty of griping.  If a guy set a CV course, logged off 15 minutes later, then the Cv gets bombed 5 minutes after that, he would get the blame even though he wasn't there.  People would assign blame to the last course setter when things go bad eventhough they might be gone or 7 sectors away on the other front.  If the last course setter was one of our resident complainers, I can see players avoiding rescuing it with a course correction to avoid the hassle of dealing with the guy.

More often than not CVs are sunk with no one in command.  Every player on that country had the ability to take 5 seconds to turn it but instead they spend 30 seconds screaming for it to be turned or complaining when it wasn't.

If the CV path is important to a player or squad, take command of it.  If there's a conflict with what to do with a CV, communicate with the commander, and work it out or relieve him.

If all else fails keep a good rank or have friends that do.

I often move CVs as a "housekeeping" issue.  Its common at the hours I fly to see CVs that have respawned and have been sitting on their default course for a while.  I send them off towards the front but I might be long gone before they get anywhere near any action.  I don't need anyone griping about the course I set 2 hours ago.

[Kingpin]

I often move CVs as a "housekeeping" issue.  Its common at the hours I fly to see CVs that have respawned and have been sitting on their default course for a while.  I send them off towards the front but I might be long gone before they get anywhere near any action.  I don't need anyone griping about the course I set 2 hours ago.

Good point.  Perhaps have it reset (clear the buffer) after 30 minutes or an hour.

[Rino]

      Tugboats