Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
AdmiralMudkip

Apparently CV rework has been pushed back to 2018 (source is very 'sketchy' so take a grain of salt)

58 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

113
[5D]
Members
605 posts
7,026 battles

So this is the case from Reddit, which came from a comment on Reddit, which the commenter heard the Farazalleth's stream. If you don't know who Fara is, he's famous in the EU server for being a very good CV player.

 

Now this is it:

Quote

No seriously, I was joking in Farazalleth stream yesterday about the cv rework when the UI was giving him a lot of trouble because of how bugged it was. I said something of the lines "2017 is the year of the cvs and cv rework" and he stated that according to his sources that was no longer the case and that all of this has fallen back in the schedule and is now planned for 2018. This clearly tells us that WG has no idea what to do with the UI, controls, or balance of CVs. I feel like I should write a post about this but meh.

2

 

I did it for him and if it's true, then I'm absolutely devastated. Especially that there are too few players who play CVs anymore! What happened to the CV rework from last year and this year?!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,653
[INTEL]
Members
8,463 posts
25,360 battles

Very happy to hear this. Now those of us who don't like being XP pinatas can play the game without the degrading presence of Sky Parasites.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,275 posts
5,789 battles
3 minutes ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

well currently we now got mighty saipans Tiers 7 with a kaga for japanase...

While the graf zep roll out as a 8 only to be broken, while the true tier 8 enterprise seem to be more powerful and seem to = a 9/10 cv.... 

Now will we get a Japanese tier 8 cv would be cool to see to = the 2 usa premium cvs on the market at moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[FF]
Members
83 posts
5,172 battles

Well, the issue is that there is not really any other way of doing it without sacrificing control of the squadrons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[PIZZA]
[PIZZA]
Supertester
916 posts
18,049 battles
10 minutes ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

One word:  Money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,024
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,043 posts
11,539 battles
31 minutes ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

They needed cash flow.  it's the same reason they are trying to convince people that an Arethusa class trade protection cruiser with 6 152mm guns is worthy of T6.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,417 posts
6,084 battles

I think part of it, is the difficulty in reworking the CVs and I think they underestimated it or they had issues with their rework.  It is no small task to be sure and they really need to redo everything about them.   I don't see how anyone plays them unless they play on a 60 inch tv. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
642 posts
782 battles

CVs seem to be more of an RTS operation. A CV captain has to work his ship, keep an eye out for surface enemies, defend against other aircraft, manage several squadrons. While many CV captains have done so with varying degrees of success it has seemed that the fun part of the game, an absolute necessity, has been subordinated to complexity and nonIRL factors. In fact, a CV should be as fun as playing a surface ship. There are ways to correct this of course and as a game designer (retired) I can think of several. Primarily applying RL facts and translating them to arcade fun play. What are those changes I would make to allow CV players to have more fun without unbalancing the whole game? Unfortunately I doubt that the Administration or design staff in St. Petersberg pay much attention to old gamers in the USA. I can only hope they come up with some ideas without us and make CV play a fun part of the game again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[NG-NL]
Members
4,974 posts
8,124 battles

It's actually simple:

1) Add a fighter group to US strike loadouts (3-8 reserve fighters, add to total hangar or subtract a few bombers

2) AP bomb option T7-10 US CVs

3) Change Clear Skies to require taking out 60%+ of the opposing CV's total planes (stop requiring BB/CA floatplanes)

4) Change AS captain skill to add +1 to TB

5) Saipan fighters that use strafe to escape fighter lock now use up all remaining ammo regardless how much they had to start

 

WG must so wrapped up in their own culture they've forgotten how to think simply.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[BLUE_]
Members
390 posts
14,134 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

Very happy to hear this. Now those of us who don't like being XP pinatas can play the game without the degrading presence of Sky Parasites.

Khaba player that likes to be 5 km away from the closest green ship spotted.

 

But seriously, only good CV players are a headache if the other CV cant compete, but they should be rewarded like any other player for the good job. And good players with CVs are rare, but if u can't deal with every single CV player you face that's another problem that isn't Sky Parasites.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
9 minutes ago, Reymu said:

It's actually simple:

1) Add a fighter group to US strike loadouts (3-8 reserve fighters, add to total hangar or subtract a few bombers

2) AP bomb option T7-10 US CVs

3) Change Clear Skies to require taking out 60%+ of the opposing CV's total planes (stop requiring BB/CA floatplanes)

4) Change AS captain skill to add +1 to TB

5) Saipan fighters that use strafe to escape fighter lock now use up all remaining ammo regardless how much they had to start

 

WG must so wrapped up in their own culture they've forgotten how to think simply.

Generally if something seems black and white, its more than likely to be immensely more complex.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,062 posts
4,736 battles
1 hour ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

Testing gimmicks to see what they like and don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[NG-NL]
Members
4,974 posts
8,124 battles
6 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

Generally if something seems black and white, its more than likely to be immensely more complex.

If you believe it's complex, you'll act like it is. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

What I've noticed is generally players come up with many tactics to use the planes. TB crossdrop is advised for DDs, but not CA nor BB--yet by doing this, I have forced them to repair as well as typically do more damage since torps hitting non-TDS sections. Even used reverse psychology to fool my team and the reds into thinking "wow the Taiho is being hypocrite, angry that Kutuzov in smoke when he's also hiding," then did long-range TB drops on the unsuspecting Kutuzov--he throttled forward to dodge my TB, but the long-range drop surprised (and paralyzed him) and he ended up falling to that clever attack.

 

To some degree, MM RNG for AA builds is partly to blame. Fewer T9-10 CVs (haven't taken Haku on maiden voyage, wasn't feeling well) logically means people less likely to go full AA spec. Plus CVs can usually wait for a good time to strike, so unless team is grouped for AA, they're just waiting.

 

Overall, I think the balance of CVs merely depends on what the loadouts can do effectively. It's a mind game with lots of foresight and calculated risks. Maybe WG would be wiser to defer the mess to the CV mains like me, since we enjoy the class, and from our experience and experimenting, see what definitely needs changing. Like said above, US CV strike loadout is too gimped, so adding fighters would help a bit; another suggestion is setting T7-10 up with a 4th loadout, 2-1-2, which is adequate to challenge IJN CVs. Heck, reduce the base flight prep time for US planes, since 45 seconds to prepare a single DB group is too long.

 

If IJN CVs are to be changed at all, I'd appreciate the takeoff and landing animations quickened, just a couple seconds. Generally I hit first with all TB or DB, bait DC, then hit with the rest. Bottleneck of takeoff/landing animation is annoying.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,386 posts
7,979 battles
56 minutes ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

So this is the case from Reddit, which came from a comment on Reddit, which the commenter heard the Farazalleth's stream. If you don't know who Fara is, he's famous in the EU server for being a very good CV player.

 

Now this is it:

 

I did it for him and if it's true, then I'm absolutely devastated. Especially that there are too few players who play CVs anymore! What happened to the CV rework from last year and this year?!

 

If true, I'm angry. Alpha through release "We'll get CV's right", 2015-2016 "We have great surprises to make CV's fun for CV players" - Aircraft rework cancelled out by buffs to AA in that and several other patches. 2016-17, we were promised a rework, a UI, and even though I said trying to put it at that tier would cause issues, GZ. The UI "fix" made it worse, controls and all were fine before. And GZ failed basically for the exact reasons I said. As well as just seemingly inept lines of thought and not seeing what works for CV's right now. And even if the exact numbers and all are the hard part, the concepts to balance are not that damn hard.

 

  • - Standardize fighters by loadout - by that I mean as an example AS get 2 fighter groups, mix/balance gets 1, strike we'll say gets 1 if it even exists. Regardless of nation, so IJN AS and USN are on the same footing.
  • "Flip" fighter DPS - IJN should get a higher DPS to go with it's fewer planes, and at some tiers anyway possibly lose ammo, while USN is lower, but has more planes that make losses less an issue and ammo for days that it can stay engaged after IJN runs out of ammo or just drive them to burn it and once out of ammo go after bombers with the reserves they have.
  • Rework strafe - make it an accuracy debuff, with minimal/no damage improvement, and a temporary DPS debuff against fighters. Gives players some more control over fighter fights than point and click, removes 30 plane auto deletes, means the gap between noob and pro, bad/okay and good/great closes.
  • Remove manual drop - it is the greatest source of carrier imbalance, and is why "BB babies" and really other classes as well, had a leg to stand on screaming for nerfs, and why AA has been buffed to idiotic levels that some BB's are just short of air attack proof. We get a replacement, fine, but the ability to drop torps about 1km away needs to go.
  • Nerf torpedo damage some - should really be across the board, but a slight nerf to CV torps isn't a bad idea. Especially IJN's with it's cross drop.
  • Nerf AA reasonably - AA overlap can stay, the AA skills can stay, much as I still think BFT should go back to a 2 point skill only adding 10% to AA DPS not 20. I will even say amongst this recombine the Secondary and AA range modules to one module that boosts both like AFT, Defensive fire has it's DPS bonus and scattering effect (maybe nerf the amount of the bonus slightly, maybe 2.5 instead of 3), but raw AA for a single ship at tier 6 and 7 individually and tier 8+ basically all of them need it toned down. Before anything, upgraded CO AA vs Ranger planes is 23.3% per second to down a plane. BFT alone, 27-28% chance. Select that squadron to be focused (not manual AA), 36% with BFT. Add manual AA to all that over 42% and that's not counting the 10% from the flag or any other things I missed. Cleveland with that is "Only" 30% against those t7 planes - but add in DFAA, unless the wiki is out of date that badly, about 80% per second. Yeah at those tiers we can add about 5% HP to maybe knock a % or two off those, not enough to compensate especially when the 1 skill that ups it "100%" increases time in AA to begin with. And those are solo ships, don't forget about the over lap mechanic. It needs to be dialed down some, and if were not dropping torps on your doorstep, it's not unreasonable because even Kaga's can be dodged or fewer hits taken when it has to drop at auto drop ranges. 
  • Increase accuracy of "DB CV's" aka the USN and GZ. GZ had the right idea but should have as many if not more planes per group than USN, hell, make them tier 7, they should be that or 6 anyway and add more to the ship, it has hanger space I did the math after being proven wrong about her lower number, making it a very good DD hunter, and has to try to burn down a BB, personally think AP should be scrapped entirely from DB's, USN getting a circle closer to Kaga or Saipan DB's that's better at DD's than IJN, which should stay as it is, giving AS a more defensive scout/anti scout role and mix a sort of "good at hunting everything, just not as great at BB's as Japan or DD's as GZ/potential German line", where AS again, has to make use of fire, easier with more accurate DB's against targets that big, and if mix, the DB's and TB group it gets together. 
  • Make "Emergency Take off" a built in mechanic, not a skill, or majorly lessen the time penalty so that a CV caught in the open cause it can be spotted halfway across the map or a DD sneaks through the middle can actually defend itself, not be totally shut down by fire. Made BB's take a skill like that or any of the other classes they'd be in an uproar.
  • Buff bomber defenses a little - self explanatory, especially given some of these had forward firing weapons to use and at least 1 IJN one was as well armed and good a dog fighter as the A6M.

Feel like I'm missing something, can't remember what, But you fix the issue that USN fighters typically dominate the air, hopefully also dial in the issue of tier difference, make it that CV's are hopefully not 1 shot killing BB's and some heavier cruisers barring a detonation, CV's are not losing planes at stupid rates that might as well have us using full fleet CV's at tier 6, and close the gap between players so they are more accessible because between a match in Saipan, and two in Kaga, the other Saipan had the AS skill vs me without and I stomped them cause strafing, and the Kaga I encountered the same player back to back and, knowing the second time off the bat he'd use strafe and so using it myself from the start, was basically schooling him too. Cause I press a button and his planes vanish. And make USN a better damage dealer WITHOUT AP bombs or giving it TB's so it's still different.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,504
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,988 posts
5,724 battles

WHAT A TWIST!

 

 

 

Not. It's been obvious since early summer that nothing major was going to come for CV's this year. 

 

2016 will be the year of the CV!

2017 will be the year of the CV!

2018 will be the year of the CV!

 

How long do they really expect people to wait?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,417 posts
6,084 battles
38 minutes ago, Reymu said:

It's actually simple:

1) Add a fighter group to US strike loadouts (3-8 reserve fighters, add to total hangar or subtract a few bombers

2) AP bomb option T7-10 US CVs

3) Change Clear Skies to require taking out 60%+ of the opposing CV's total planes (stop requiring BB/CA floatplanes)

4) Change AS captain skill to add +1 to TB

5) Saipan fighters that use strafe to escape fighter lock now use up all remaining ammo regardless how much they had to start

 

WG must so wrapped up in their own culture they've forgotten how to think simply.

They need to rework the entire interface if they want new CV players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
3 hours ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

 

3 hours ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

What happened to the CV rework from last year and this year?!

 

SOON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
1 hour ago, Reymu said:

If you believe it's complex, you'll act like it is. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some of the greatest inventions of all time are remarkably simple; (like the assembly line; one piece at a time) so, thumbs up! +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,951 posts
1,487 battles
3 hours ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

 

They've stated their using the to prototype ideas for the rework, from the sounds of it their really struggling with both the UI and balance alike.

 

1 hour ago, CylonRed said:

They need to rework the entire interface if they want new CV players.

 

This, any Ui that requires you to click more than once every few seconds to pull off a successful multi-squadron attack is not going to be workable for the average WoWS player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
252 posts
2,223 battles
Just now, Carl said:

 

They've stated their using the to prototype ideas for the rework, from the sounds of it their really struggling with both the UI and balance alike.

 

 

This, any Ui that requires you to click more than once every few seconds to pull off a successful multi-squadron attack is not going to be workable for the average WoWS player. 

Not to mention the lagginess, and ancient bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
3 hours ago, Battleship_Orion said:

I still can't get over why they released so many premium CVs before the rework.

They need money now, and premium ships are also great publicity when they work right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
1 minute ago, Frenotx said:

Not to mention the lagginess, and ancient bugs.

99% of the time lag is your ISPs fault.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×