if CV rework is done, would you quit or would you play more?

[centarina]

this was part of SubOctavian's reddit post

 

CV rework

Carriers are really a bad spot in terms of game balance. We are working on a full restart of this class, and we intend to solve the following problems:
* excessive influence on the fight,
* a huge skill gap and complexity of training,
* a huge gap in air defense and protection from AB (all or nothing),
* the possibility of total roflstomp (?)(especially at high tiers).

We want the aircraft carriers to play more interestingly and cheerfully, so that they fit more organically into the game, so that their popularity grows, not harming the balance and not causing a negative reaction from the players (now, with all these problems, they are also not very popular, which is bad for the confined in air defense ships). This is really a huge and very difficult task, and right now we are not ready to talk about the work in more detail, and to give promises at this stage is premature. But this is one of the key priorities for the year, so we will try, and you - wait for news, but later.

 

 

I realize that there is contingent of vocal  CV players on the forum and wanted opinion whether this will cause you to quit playing CV.  if so, what would be the key issue?     I do agree that this change will be controversal no matter how well this is done, but I also think it is long overdue. 

 

Also,  if you currently dabble in CV,  you have not moved beyond t5 because of current issues.     would you play more if this was done?

 

 

[Brhinosaurus]

It would also be fair to ask how many non-CV players would start playing more, wouldn't it?

 

I don't play carriers anymore unless I have to for a mission.  I've always been okay at it but it's way too stressful.  Finally get a precision torpedo drop just right and delete a ship, only to realize I was neglecting my fighters and my friendly ships are taking a pounding from the other carrier.  Or alternately, hurry the torp drop, screw it up, and feel like I wasted my one shot at doing meaningful damage in the five minutes it takes to launch, travel, strike, return, land, and rearm my planes.  No thanks!

[cometguy]

It wouldn't cause me to quit. Whether it causes me to stop playing CVs depends on what the changes are. Reducing influence, skill gap, all or nothing air defense, and the possibility of a roflstomp are all good goals, but says nothing about the implementation.

It's like saying you have a plan to lower people's mortgage payments. I'm on board if the plan is to lower interest rates, but not on board if the plan is to sell my house and buy a cheaper one.

[LoveBote]

13 minutes ago, centarina said:

* excessive influence on the fight,
* a huge skill gap and complexity of training,
* a huge gap in air defense and protection from AB (all or nothing),
* the possibility of total roflstomp (?)(especially at high tiers

I am concerned, because sub_Octavian is talking nonsense, regurgitating the successful trolling of some and potatoe complaints of others. If CVs are difficult to learn, it is because of the scandalous absence of effective in game tutorials, because of the free xp mentality, because of the "buy a t8 cv with zero experience of playing cvs" mentality encouraged by WG (and Sub_Octavian). The so called excessive influence on the fight is equal nonsense, dds decide high tier battles, followed by exceptionally skilled players in whatever class of ship they decide to play, followed by capable 3 person divisions, not cvs in themselves. He should know better. As for the rest, I cannot be bother to detail a retort, other than equal nonsense.

Extremely disappointing and worrying coming from WOWS HQ.

[Carl]

2 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

I am concerned, because sub_Octavian is talking nonsense, regurgitating the successful trolling of a some and potatoe complaints of others. If CVs are difficult to learn, it is because of the scandalous absence of effective in gale tutorials, because of the free xp mentality, because of the "buy a t8 cv with zero experience of playing cvs" mentality encouraged by WG (and Sub_Octavian). The eso called excessive influence on the fight is equal nonsense, dds decide high tier battles, followed by exceptionally skileld players in whatever class of ship they decide to play, followed by capable 3 person divisions, not cvs in themselves. He should know better. As for the rest, I cannot be bother to detail a retort, other than equal nonsense.

Extremely disappointing and worrying coming from WOWS HQ.

 

He;s regurgitating nothing. He's indicaited in past Q&A this is all determined off actual performance statistics of a wide variety of skill level CV players that only WG';ing has access to it.

[NoLoveForPhatShips]

I might start playing them if they get them fixed right now I have no interest and mostly get potato CV captains on my team which just makes me dislike the class even more

[LoveBote]

3 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

He;s regurgitating nothing. He's indicaited in past Q&A this is all determined off actual performance statistics of a wide variety of skill level CV players that only WG';ing has access to it.

such wild skill disparities at high tiers only exist because of a) small number of high tier cv players, b) excessive proportion of free xp potatoes, while at lower tiers these skill disparities are due to the absence of effective in game training programmes for cv players, and the failure to put premium cvs behind a skill lock = a problem created by Wargaming with obvious solutions.

[IronWolfV]

Guys, to redo carrier mechanics to get them to flow better with the other classes, some of the base mechanics of the game itself have to be completely redone.

This won't just change carriers. It will change the whole game itself.

[Seniorious]

What should be done is restrict the IJN CVs to only one loadout just like the USN. It's awful that we are stuck with just one load, when the IJN get to choose strike-heavy or fighter-heavy and both still outweigh our options.  

[TheKrimzonDemon]

The biggest issue I see with CV's is how player skill affects the outcome more with this class than the other 3. If, and I stress IF, WG finds a way to balance them to make them easier, not easy, easier, to play for average to decent players, then I feel CV's will be ok.

 

There's a lot to keep track of when driving a CV, your interface isn't the same as the one there for everyone else, and, honestly, that's a glaring issue. People good at, or at least used to, RTS games tend to have a much easier time with CV's. I personally don't have an issue playing them, I've also played a LOT of RTS games. Much of the playerbase doesn't have that going for them.

[Komrade_Rylo]

Depends on if the rework is a major buff or not. I don't fancy the idea of a potato being able to easily do 150k in a haku/midway

[megadeux]

It depends on how they do it...

If they do it in such a way that the skill set in CVs that I have spent hundreds if games working on is rendered irrelevant, then I may quit. If they make it a boring, auto drop feat like low tiers, then I'll sadly sell my Taiho.

If they find some way to make it fun, exciting, and there are more CVs left..

I'll keep playing 

[Dr_Venture]

New line to grind :) 

[Mister_Rawr]

2 minutes ago, Seniorious said:

What should be done is restrict the IJN CVs to only one loadout just like the USN. It's awful that we are stuck with just one load, when the IJN get to choose strike-heavy or fighter-heavy and both still outweigh our options.  

You can play IJN CVs you know.  

Not disagreeing on the principle, just the we/them argument.  As @IronWolfV pointed out, this is a huge rework which will involve not just carriers and how they play the game.  

I began playing in mid-2015 because I wanted to be an awesome Lexington player.  At this moment I have not progressed past Independence.  Out of my 3504 Solo PVP matches played, only 75 are in a carrier.  Also, I obviously didn't know what the state of Lex was in this game.

In any case, I'm not under the impression that every player's experience is identical to mine.  I just get the feeling that it's not unusual.  Except for the wanting-to-play-Lexington part.  I mean, who really wants that? 

-R

[BaronVonTom]

No doubt the cv problem is widespread in every tier.  One of the biggest problems is seeing these cv's designed for a specific tier....uptiered.   A good example is the Kaga with tier 6 planes being uptiered against tier 9 ships and their aa (this not a PLUS 1 OR 2 UPTIER, THIS IS A PLUS 3 UPTIER). The Bogue with auto drops and no straff ability being uptiered to tier 6.  CV's should NEVER be uptiered.  When they keep the cv's in the tier they were designed for, I'll start playing them again.  The skill differences in player ability, even at the high tiers, is comical at best.

 

The uptiering problem within the MM has become more and more commonplace and is not the exception.  This is why I have asked LittleWhiteMouse to include a section in her reviews for how well a ship performs when uptiered.  Nobody currently does this in their reviews.  I hope LWM does this.

 

Additionally, none of the statistic sites provide statistical information on how well a ship performs when uptiered.  I will bet WG knows though.

I quit cv's because of uptiering and I wont play them again until they fix this.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

For the CV guys... what if your damage was cut in half? Or something like that. Skill will still prevail in the skies but now you can't simply delete ships at will, especially when the enemy is a full potato and provides no support to his team at all.

Strafing, maybe the strafing does less damage but disables or slows down enemy planes....instead of whacking 15 potato planes form the sky in 2 seconds.

Just spitballing here......

[hipcanuck]

So you think CV's should do less damage than every other class? If you look at stats, CV's put out only slightly more damage on average than BB's, not much more than cruisers (with some exceptions).

2 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

For the CV guys... what if your damage was cut in half? Or something like that. Skill will still prevail in the skies but now you can't simply delete ships at will, especially when the enemy is a full potato and provides no support to his team at all.

Strafing, maybe the strafing does less damage but disables or slows down enemy planes....instead of whacking 15 potato planes form the sky in 2 seconds.

Just spitballing here......

 

[Battlecruiser_PrncsRoyal]

34 minutes ago, centarina said:

this was part of SubOctavian's reddit post

 

CV rework

Carriers are really a bad spot in terms of game balance. We are working on a full restart of this class, and we intend to solve the following problems:
* excessive influence on the fight,
* a huge skill gap and complexity of training,
* a huge gap in air defense and protection from AB (all or nothing),
* the possibility of total roflstomp (?)(especially at high tiers).

We want the aircraft carriers to play more interestingly and cheerfully, so that they fit more organically into the game, so that their popularity grows, not harming the balance and not causing a negative reaction from the players (now, with all these problems, they are also not very popular, which is bad for the confined in air defense ships). This is really a huge and very difficult task, and right now we are not ready to talk about the work in more detail, and to give promises at this stage is premature. But this is one of the key priorities for the year, so we will try, and you - wait for news, but later.

 

 

I realize that there is contingent of vocal  CV players on the forum and wanted opinion whether this will cause you to quit playing CV.  if so, what would be the key issue?     I do agree that this change will be controversal no matter how well this is done, but I also think it is long overdue. 

 

Also,  if you currently dabble in CV,  you have not moved beyond t5 because of current issues.     would you play more if this was done?

 

 

I think CVs want to stop being singled out so much. The current gameplay puts a spotlight on them at all times - for good or ill. Some players may seek that kind of attention, but I'd wager the majority are tired of having that level of pressure hover over them while playing a ridiculous video game. Plus, I think most carriers would agree that their disproportionate impact on games is more than a little stupid.

Basically, this has been a long time coming for everyone, and progress cannot be stopped just because a few people feel uneasy.

... not that I have any faith that this will ever come to pass, or if it does, that Wargaming won't screw it up entirely.

[hipcanuck]

CV's are so complicated and are intertwined with spotting issues, AA issues and strafing success has much to do with having a lower ping.

There is so much to fix that the game WILL change significantly for every class.

 

 

[Big_Spud]

I know plenty of people who would return if CVs were actually in a fun and playable state.

[Halonut24]

I'd probably play more, especially CV. Right now CV is just ridiculously difficult to get into, let alone good at, and I love me some 'Murican Flat-tops. (The USS Midway is my baby, and I want her in my port so bad, but I'm so bad at CV, it just won't happen ) If CV were a little more player friendly, I'd be more keen to use them. But, alas, I only have 3 ship classes that are practically useful to me.

[centarina]

tbh,  plane kill should be part of the  stat.     something like WTR doesn't include it, but    it should.      otherwise, you need to make plane kill  to be unimportant  or non existent and create more steady state dmg vs spike dmg.    only issue with all these type of lowering floor/ceiling  means it will make it boring .  but overall health of the class is also important.     

 

I do think current premium owners and unicums may hate the chnage though.   why this post was made to gauge their reaction and see what could be done to mitigate beyond  "no change is needed"  response. 

 

 

 

 

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Just now, hipcanuck said:

So you think CV's should do less damage than every other class? If you look at stats, CV's put out only slightly more damage on average than BB's, not much more than cruisers (with some exceptions).

 

Do you understand the term spitballing? I am just to throw out ideas to stimulate constructive conversation concerning reworking of CV's.

so lets address your specific question.....you just said that they do more than BB's slightly more than CA's and we all know that DD's have the lowest damage so your real question is Should CV's not be the highest damage dealing ships in the game.

The answer is no, they shouldn't. Now a good player will always get his numbers, why should a CV have higher numbers than his 11 other teammates while taking infinitely less risk in the process? 

[dionkraft]

I'm going to make this VERY SIMPLE in regards to what a carrier ship inplay in WOW should do.   The driver/captain only has one squadron of planes in which he leads and flies out himself to attack a specific target. If he gets shot down he takes over a Bot plane (in this squad) and continues on till he says so. In the meanwhile the CV will have to be on auto pilot or stattionary.   The squad will have no time or fuel restriction while in the air.  If all the planes get shot down - the captain will only man the CV till that is sunk.  The size of the Squad- as BIG or less as he wants to make it. 

I know this is quite a restriction but its only fair. Also I may clailify - when I said the captain will fly...I mean it literally..using your keyboard or (if programmed in; Joystick) to actually fly in third point view or first point...fly and lead your squad. to victory or death!   Kinda like a melding of World of Airplanes and World of Warships....

[mofton]

Why would anyone start playing CV now when they know that at some undetermined point in the future they'll at least change hugely, and possibly even improve?