Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
X01_ISAAC_7

Dev Blog Asks Community About CVs, We Respond! (Video)

58 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
183 posts

Hey everyone, Isaac here! Just wanted to make a video going over some of the better ideas in response to a facebook post on the World of Warships Dev Blog about what we as a community would like to see in a CV rework.

 

Sorry it's such a long video, I did mean to try and make it shorter, but the multiple windows I was using to view the comments covered up my Bandicam timer. RIP my video length. And with having the response of my subscribers enjoying my more off-the-cuff style of videos, it kinda lapsed..... plus I kinda can get off on tangents/rants. Sorry! Not much to actually watch in the video and you could probably listen to it while alt+tabbed and playing Warships or other games in a different window.

Anyway, what are your thoughts and opinions on some of the things I covered? Do you agree with some of the ones that the community has come up with? Do you disagree with them? Do you have your own ideas you'd like to see or would like to offer? Leave a comment in the comments section of the video or a post here on the forums and let's try to get this feedback back to WarGaming on their forums along with their Dev Blog Facebook post!

Dev Blog Post: https://www.facebook.com/WorldOfWarships.NA/posts/2083103431904850

As always, Captains, take care!

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,740
[INTEL]
Members
8,603 posts
25,771 battles

Let them die. Most players don't want them in the game.

At least give them a separate mode, so we can play the game without their immersion destroying presence.

  • Cool 10
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,808 posts
15,355 battles

I find it amusing that anyone still thinks that WoW, or WG, ever listen to anything coming out of the NA server.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
217 posts
2,046 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

Let them die. Most players don't want them in the game.

At least give them a separate mode, so we can play the game without their immersion destroying presence.

Most players? Yeah, not really. Those people are out there but they are not "most".

Get in a Cleveland and say good day to CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,925 posts
2,492 battles
29 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I find it amusing that anyone still thinks that WoW, or WG, ever listen to anything coming out of the NA server.

While this may be true in the past for WoT's NA community (they're trying to change at the moment with new hires), WoWS's NA community actually has quite a few 'developers' who listen to, participate, and start community discussions about certain game content. Warships as a topic are bigger in the states than say most European countries, and Russia (it's the opposite with tanks). So it makes sense that they would, and do listen to this server.

Edited by HowitzerBlitzer
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

Most players don't want them in the game.

You don't have enough data to say that convincingly.  Yes, we know that you don't want them in the game, and I'm fine with that, but don't go speaking for an ephemeral majority you have no proof of.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,740
[INTEL]
Members
8,603 posts
25,771 battles
14 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

You don't have enough data to say that convincingly.  Yes, we know that you don't want them in the game, and I'm fine with that, but don't go speaking for an ephemeral majority you have no proof of.

 

The devs have already conceded that in a discussion a long time ago.

So thanks, but I do know the true state of affairs.

The forums do not reflect the general state of affairs.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles
Just now, Taichunger said:

The devs have already conceded that in a discussion a long time ago.

So thanks, but I do know the true state of affairs.

The forums do not reflect the general state of affairs.

Exhibit the proof, or you're just the blowhard we already figured you are.  Sure, not many or playing them at the moment, and less now with the rework looming, but that's not the same as 'Want them all gone'.  

Oh well, no one's a bit surprised about what Mr. Always Negative has to say.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,427
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,087 posts
6,845 battles

i honestly dont care that much about CVs, because i usually have the AFT/BFT skills on most of my ships, and USN high tier BBs and cruisers just simply laugh in the face of CVs, that, and i dont play them because at the higher tiers the micromanaging of all the squads would be too stressful to me

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,740
[INTEL]
Members
8,603 posts
25,771 battles
29 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Exhibit the proof, or you're just the blowhard we already figured you are.  Sure, not many or playing them at the moment, and less now with the rework looming, but that's not the same as 'Want them all gone'.  

Oh well, no one's a bit surprised about what Mr. Always Negative has to say.Ad

 

Lol. I am only negative about cancer boats and radar.

You can believe what you like, but WG devs said most players prefer Jutland type engagements without CVs -- dont feel like searching 3500 posts with that word.

WG knows CVs are widely hated and destructive to gameplay.  That is why they restricted CV numbers, hard balance them by tiers, banned them from Clan Wars, and take no action against people who exit the Ranked queue when CVs appear.

 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,808 posts
15,355 battles
42 minutes ago, HowitzerBlitzer said:

While this may be true in the past for WoT's NA community (they're trying to change at the moment with new hires), WoWS's NA community actually has quite a few 'developers' who listen to, participate, and start community discussions about certain game content. Warships as a topic are bigger in the states than say most European countries, and Russia (it's the opposite with tanks). So it makes sense that they would, and do listen to this server.

I appreciate the way you disagree; politely, so I will attempt to answer the same way. One of the main things I base my statement on is the recent Midway changes; while the ship enjoyed superior win rates on the Russian server, it was very much a closer stat race on all of the other ones. But the ship was changed anyway, based solely on stats  from the Russian server. My opinion is that many changes we endure are solely based on stats we have neither control over or input on. My Opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
859
[SBS]
Members
2,491 posts
2,253 battles

Here's some feedback for the devs.  Ditch the RTS play for CVs.  Its a big problem for CVs and where many other problem stem from.  The RTS play style doesn't appeal to many in the player base in WoWs, that leads to few CVs in game, large skill discrepancy between players, and in turn the game is mostly balanced around the lack of CV play.  If CVs were to be popular enough to have them in all, or almost all games then we would have to rebalance the game.  I can't see how the RTS model can work.

The talk seems to be the rework will involve the players more directly controlling the planes, possibly one at a time (one squadron, not just one plane).  This would solve the other problems CVs create.  The problem with CVs is they can do too much.  They can spot with different squadrons all over the map at once making their spotting OP.  They can survey the entire map for weaknesses and decide where to concentrate their fire power.  Or, something that can be even worse than concentrating their squadrons is spreading them out and the CV can be everywhere at once.  That has the power to control matches like no other ship.

If CVs were to only control one squadron at a time, meaning, only one squadron in the air at a time, then CVs would act like all other ships (read: have a limited control of the map as a whole).  The other thing that would do is take away the RTS/multi-tasking aspect of CVs that make them unpopular.  Anyone would be able to jump into CVs if all you had to do was control the lead plane in one squadron at a time.  We would have to make planes more dynamic to make them interesting enough to gain more mass appeal; we could add altitude, strafing ships and other mechanics to make game play for more fun.  I don't know if that is possible in the current game engine.

Its getting late here so I don't have time to finish all of my thoughts on this now...                

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,808 posts
15,355 battles
44 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Exhibit the proof, or you're just the blowhard we already figured you are.  Sure, not many or playing them at the moment, and less now with the rework looming, but that's not the same as 'Want them all gone'.  

Oh well, no one's a bit surprised about what Mr. Always Negative has to say.

Your post is interesting in a number of ways.

One way is that you use the plural form instead of saying "me" or "I"; do you think that by alluding to you being part of a larger group it will give more weight to your opinion? Do you think that if it is just you giving that opinion other players will think less of it?

Another way your post is interesting is that you try to degrade and discount the weight of @Taichunger and his opinions by referring to him using negative words and phrases. The terms "blowhard" and "Mr Always Negative" are not terms a person would apply to someone whose opinion was respected or valid. Do you feel like by degrading the author you somehow lessen the validity of what he has to say?

Someone who was truly and sincerely confident in their arguments has no need to degrade either the opinions, or the character, of those who oppose them, so I'm wondering if you are really as confident of your position as you say you are; your choice of a way to dispute him indicates you are not.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

Ya know, there are a lot of ideas out there. Many of those ideas are good.

The problem is, everyone wants their idea to be the fix and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
183 posts

Good discussion so far! I agree with some of you here, and disagree with others. And I will say that the stats on other servers are far closer for the Hak vs Mid than they are on the RU servers. The fact that they nerfed the Mid based on that was enough to make me stop grinding the USN carriers altogether. The removal of all Flight Mods for USN CVs except for the stock modules also didn't help. I sold my Ranger and really have no intention of playing any further down the USN carrier line when the IJN is better at every level. The only US CV that even feels near as capable as her IJN same-tier counterpart is the USS Enterprise.

Insofar as Enterprise, Kaga, Saipan, and Graf Zepplin are concerned, it will be interesting to see how they deal with those when this proposed rework occurs. People may be wanting full refunds when they do since they are premium ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,509
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,503 posts
3,435 battles

I distinctly recall that WG mentioned that their past data collection results were that CVs were mostly unwanted, but WG also mentioned that they couldn't outright drop them as then it would require they further split up lines in a manner to replace them (not that it's not impossible, considering we could have DDs, CLs, CAs, BCs, and BBs, and Aviation Cruisers/Battleships). Further, the CVs were meant to help speed up a game by providing scouting power and piling their attacks alongside their teammates' focused fire rather than solo slaughter everything.

58 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

You can believe what you like, but WG devs said most players prefer Jutland type engagements without CVs. WG knows CVs are widely hated and destructive to gameplay.  That is why they restricted CV numbers, hard balance them by tiers, banned them from Clan Wars, and take no action against people who exit the Ranked queue when CVs appear.

I remember the Jutland statement. Wasn't that on Reddit? Something about how players preferred a game of old-school naval gunnery with very limited aerial advantages (limited to the catapult planes only), but they insisted that CVs were necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,332 posts
3,591 battles

After seeing how CV wreck ranked mode I think they should be the highest priority not new ships lines and new modes. Those things are good, but having CV's in their current state is bad news. Having played CV in randoms I have been frustrated by the lack of automatic controls. Sometimes you need planes to be able to act on their own. I mean even having set patrol ranges would be nice. Best I can do now is set a squadron or two on a BB to defend them while I focus on the other flank. I feel very pissed off at Wargaming for leaving this problem in unaddressed ever since beta.  It's time to take ownership and fix things like a responsible company does. The current setup is too complex for the average player to want to CV not even including the op power of them. Hoping for a solution to be put first rather than another Battleship line right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
859
[SBS]
Members
2,491 posts
2,253 battles
7 hours ago, landedkiller said:

Having played CV in randoms I have been frustrated by the lack of automatic controls. Sometimes you need planes to be able to act on their own.

Automatic controls might break CVs even farther.  Sure, it might lower the skill floor some and that might allow a few more people to play them.  One down side is it could widen the skill gap even more.  As I said it might help some people that have trouble keeping up with all of the micromanagement, it could also allow good players to be even more dangerous. 

I think a really big problem with CVs is they can be multiple places at once.  They can spot and attack all over the map in ways the other ships can't.  That's just too powerful.  Automatic controls would only make that easier.  Imagine if my DD could be on both flanks, and in the middle of the map, all at once.  That sounds pretty dumb, and extremely OP.  That's what CVs do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
29 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I think a really big problem with CVs is they can be multiple places at once.  They can spot and attack all over the map in ways the other ships can't.

Getting around that is going to be incredibly difficult to do though. The time it takes for a CV to attack a target from beginning to end is way longer than anyone else. Sure, torpedo boats may hate to use their guns, but they're an option.

So if you only have one squadron in the air, and it takes a long time to cycle, then you end up with a big dillema on what happens as a result. If the payoff is unreliable, or not large, then no one will play CVs, because it takes a lot of effort to do very little, and you have to stay far away from everyone. If the payoff is reflection of the amount of time and attention invested in the attack, then it would be too devastating for the player on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[PVE]
Members
384 posts
8,698 battles

Combine squadrons into one or two groups since CV's always sent fighters with their attack planes. 

This would eliminate the OP scouting and attacking abilities of CV's.

And manual drops need changed. Their is nothing more annoying than being in a Soviet cruiser or any BB and having every single torp hit you from an unavoidable manual drop. It's very unrealistic and breaks the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
4 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

Combine squadrons into one or two groups since CV's always sent fighters with their attack planes. 

This would eliminate the OP scouting and attacking abilities of CV's.

And manual drops need changed. Their is nothing more annoying than being in a Soviet cruiser or any BB and having every single torp hit you from an unavoidable manual drop. It's very unrealistic and breaks the game. 

Rather than change manual drops, they should change the AA mechanic. You protect yourself from AP rounds by angling your ship. If you don't, you're going to lose a lot of health, very fast. Give players a way to control how effective their AA is, and you'll see a decrease in CVs abilities to line up perfect shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
Beta Testers
490 posts
8,776 battles

What we need is for every class of ship to have CV effectiveness.

Every class should be able to sit hidden in the far back of the map, yet able to spot the entire map. Damage should be just as easy.... BB And cruisers would have cruise missles or 50km homing torps. Simply click launch, click a target and giggle at deleting ships who cant even spot their attacker, nor have the range anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
859
[SBS]
Members
2,491 posts
2,253 battles
Just now, cometguy said:

Getting around that is going to be incredibly difficult to do though. The time it takes for a CV to attack a target from beginning to end is way longer than anyone else. Sure, torpedo boats may hate to use their guns, but they're an option.

So if you only have one squadron in the air, and it takes a long time to cycle, then you end up with a big dillema on what happens as a result. If the payoff is unreliable, or not large, then no one will play CVs, because it takes a lot of effort to do very little, and you have to stay far away from everyone. If the payoff is reflection of the amount of time and attention invested in the attack, then it would be too devastating for the player on the other side.

I completely agree about cycle rates.  That would need to be factored in for balance/playability.  Maybe allow auto pilot to fly the planes back to the carrier after an attack so the player can take off with a new squadron.  The AI controlled planes flying back to carrier might have to be unable to spot (or very limited spotting) for the purposes of balance.  

Just now, Rabbitt81 said:

Combine squadrons into one or two groups since CV's always sent fighters with their attack planes.

If WG was to go in the direction of having the player directly control one squadron at a time (and think that is the direction they are looking at), then maybe at higher tiers having an option to attach an AI controlled fighter escort to a torp/bomber squadron or friendly ship could work. 

Just now, cometguy said:

Rather than change manual drops, they should change the AA mechanic. You protect yourself from AP rounds by angling your ship. If you don't, you're going to lose a lot of health, very fast. Give players a way to control how effective their AA is, and you'll see a decrease in CVs abilities to line up perfect shots.

Assuming I'm on the right track with my thoughts on how the rework might happen, I think there will still be manual drops, its just they won't be anything like they are now.  I think the top down view and RTS play style will be replaced with planes operating more like WoWPs (as much as the current game engine will allow that to happen).  This is something that the average WoWs can adapt to easily and be more appealing to the masses.

I happen to think the another radical departure from what CV players are used to now will be the damage output.  Think along the lines of DD to cruiser levels of damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,515 posts
5,500 battles
11 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

Here's some feedback for the devs.  Ditch the RTS play for CVs.  Its a big problem for CVs and where many other problem stem from.  The RTS play style doesn't appeal to many in the player base in WoWs, that leads to few CVs in game, large skill discrepancy between players, and in turn the game is mostly balanced around the lack of CV play.  If CVs were to be popular enough to have them in all, or almost all games then we would have to rebalance the game.  I can't see how the RTS model can work.

The talk seems to be the rework will involve the players more directly controlling the planes, possibly one at a time (one squadron, not just one plane).  This would solve the other problems CVs create.  The problem with CVs is they can do too much.  They can spot with different squadrons all over the map at once making their spotting OP.  They can survey the entire map for weaknesses and decide where to concentrate their fire power.  Or, something that can be even worse than concentrating their squadrons is spreading them out and the CV can be everywhere at once.  That has the power to control matches like no other ship.

If CVs were to only control one squadron at a time, meaning, only one squadron in the air at a time, then CVs would act like all other ships (read: have a limited control of the map as a whole).  The other thing that would do is take away the RTS/multi-tasking aspect of CVs that make them unpopular.  Anyone would be able to jump into CVs if all you had to do was control the lead plane in one squadron at a time.  We would have to make planes more dynamic to make them interesting enough to gain more mass appeal; we could add altitude, strafing ships and other mechanics to make game play for more fun.  I don't know if that is possible in the current game engine.

Its getting late here so I don't have time to finish all of my thoughts on this now...                

I'm going with the one player and robo squaron scenario as you mentioned one plane in the sky routine. I can see that after your guided squad has completed the mission the player could respawn on the CV and take out another onto a mission.

In the mean while your squad you flew could be programmed to come back to the CV in a route you wish for. Quickest/shortest way back, safest but longest way back or you plot the course. Not all those will ensure they come back intact however due to the dynamics of the game.  AS for the defence - I think that any ship will have automatic AA fire control but lets kick in MANUAL fire control where the ships captain could aim (much like the guns) and shoot planes. 

Anyways thats my two cents...

Edited by dionkraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×