Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Yakuza137

I think we have a general outlook of the CV Rework of what it's gonna be.

121 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
50 posts
1,839 battles

If the main point is because of the degree of skill between two CVS is huge. One is a good one is bad = total overkill for the good one as everyone said. With CV gameplay being basic as it is with STANDARD RTS gameplay similar to others. 

 

Then I 100 percent will say that the new gameplay of cvs WILL NOT BE RTS= Real time Strategy Like what we have now. The only way to have it work is to make it FPS in some way. IT DOESNT MATTER NO MATTER WHAT IF ITS AN RTS BASED OF SOME SORT YOU WILL HAVE ONE LOSER AND ONE WINNER AND IT WILL BE ONE SIDED one person will have better tactics and skills you can't balance it. In all strategy games, it's that way it will always be forever unbalanced no matter what you do and put restrictions.

If you played RTS games you know what I'm talking about.

 

 

You all agreed that the problem is between to cvs then yes we pretty much can see how the rework is gonna be. If it's gonna be RTS gameplay again then this problem will continue... and you will all whine again. lol

 It doesn't matter how you nerf it or change it one person is gonna be smarter we are humans, not robots lol.

 

Change 1: To some people who offered these ideas

You want to put fuel limits on planes: The other person will just calculate how much fuel to here and there and adapt to the situation that's strategy based.... the smart cv will just wait until enemy fighters run out of fuel and just bomb the heck out of everyone.

Damage to ship to planes: CV's rarely see combat on the ship itself he would just hide in the first place. If you see the CV without killing the rest of the ships then the CV player has issues lol.

 

PS: All my cvs are above well over 50 percent win rates. I'm not complaining about its hard to play RTS... Since people think I'm having a hard time  >.>" 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,761
Members
18,363 posts
5,241 battles

I agree. I think any changes they try to make within the current format would be doomed to failure.

I wonder if a possibility is some kind of RTS/FPS hybrid. Basically the same game we have now, but with auto drops only. If you want manual, you drop into FPS mode, with the downside being losing micro control of your other squadrons.

The game I remember the devs for, Pacific Storm, had precisely that type of gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
50 posts
1,839 battles
Just now, Skpstr said:

I agree. I think any changes they try to make within the current format would be doomed to failure.

I wonder if a possibility is some kind of RTS/FPS hybrid. Basically the same game we have now, but with auto drops only. If you want manual, you drop into FPS mode, with the downside being losing micro control of your other squadrons.

The game I remember the devs for, Pacific Storm, had precisely that type of gameplay.

Again no If you have rts it's gonna be one sided no matter what lol for one person. The only way you can have it fair is to have two people of the same caliber vs each other other then that no RTS will not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers
1,731 posts
2,617 battles

I just hope that WG excutes this CV rework well sine they are taking their time and then some to implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,837 posts
11,180 battles

If you were a terrible CV player before, then no change to how they work will make them a better one, those that are great CV players will adapt quickly and probably open the skill gap even wider.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,607
[PSP]
Members
6,359 posts
8,982 battles

The solution to CV unicums making matches one-sided is simply to institute a skill-based matchmaker for CVs. The rest of the players can be random but it's ridiculous to match a 75% win CV against a 45% win CV.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles
8 minutes ago, Yakuza137 said:

If the main point is because of the degree of skill between two CVS is huge. One is a good one is bad = total overkill for the good one as everyone said. With CV gameplay being basic as it is with standard RTS gameplay similar to others. 

 

Then I 100 percent will say that the new gameplay of cvs WILL NOT BE RTS= Real time Strategy Like what we have now. The only way to have it work is to make it FPS in some way. IT DOESNT MATTER NO MATTER WHAT IF ITS AN RTS BASED OF SOME SORT YOU WILL HAVE ONE LOSER AND ONE WINNER AND IT WILL BE ONE SIDED one person will have better tactics and skills you can't balance it. In all strategy games, it's that way it will always be forever unbalanced no matter what you do and put restrictions.

If you played RTS games you know what I'm talking about.

Ive played almost 100 cv battles. Even with consistant play on my part there is no consistant results. One battle my fighters will get swept from the sky the very next battle my fighters will sweep everything from the sky without loosing anything. And that's with air superiority in both battles. From my point of view it's difference in commander skills but thats hard to prove since i cant see the other commanders skills in the battle. Lets not even talk about the lack of consistancy with attack squadrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,872 posts
7,205 battles
26 minutes ago, Yakuza137 said:

If you do not agree with this get out.. 

Good luck with that attitude.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
50 posts
1,839 battles
Just now, DarthZeppelin said:

Good luck with that attitude.

Well people who have no clue of why cvs have a problem shouldn't be joining a bandwagon lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,778
[YORHA]
Members
3,361 posts
1 minute ago, DarthZeppelin said:

Good luck with that attitude.

 

Yup.

 

jeO9Jj1.gif

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,281
[RKLES]
Members
7,243 posts
9,040 battles

Problem with FPS usage of the planes is how accurate with that make them and how will AA work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
50 posts
1,839 battles

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that we have to wait and see, but we already know it's not gonna be RTS Based.

Edited by Yakuza137

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[HAIFU]
[HAIFU]
Members
58 posts
4,166 battles

I have always maintained that any form of rework that is intended to bring CV's into line with other classes of ships will end up with a product that is unrecognizable, and frankly not that amazing. At least not any more amazing as the other classes of ship.
CV's are just so different from the core gameplay that they are a bit of an oddball to deal with from a balance PR and development perspective. In my opinion they never should have been made playable. But it's too late now. Cause we have premium CV's and CV "Mains", players that have invested heavily into this type of ship. Even though it's unbalanced you can't just take away them or drastically alter them because there would be a huge uproar from those who invested said time and in some cases thier money.
It's just an ugly situation all around and there is really no way to get around it other than to just make some tweaks here and there and live with this unbalanced and wonky class that causes so many problems in an otherwise decently balanced game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
752
[POD]
Beta Testers
3,008 posts
4,451 battles

it reminds me of the wot light tanks,the vehicle with the highest skill gap and ceiling,need to understand spotting mechanics,camouflage,view range,radio range,camouflage after firing,use of terrains and so many other topics.

meanwhile a CV need to learn how to strafe,predict the enemy ship movements so he can torp well or cross drop,understand AA aura while at the same time paying attention to the minimap,managing his plane and other things.

the thing is....maybe the solution would be to make the ship more simple to play,overloading it with information increase the skill gap.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
50 posts
1,839 battles

It's pretty simple how it is now to be honest......... and you can't in that case you have to revise the whole thing with the AA aurora and how much damage it outputs to make it balanced. 

or make it into something like rock paper sissors lol

Edited by Yakuza137

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
752
[POD]
Beta Testers
3,008 posts
4,451 battles
Just now, Yakuza137 said:

It's pretty simple how it is now to be honest......... and you can't in that case you have to revise the whole thing with the AA aurora and how much damage it outputs to make it balanced. 

i think WG wot team did the same thing with the spotting mechanic,some light tanks became useless after that,before that they were dedicated scouts,i think my wz-131 got the nerfhammer hard,meanwhile the "revamp"  helped a lot of medium tanks too.

Share this post


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

If you were a terrible CV player before, then no change to how they work will make them a better one, those that are great CV players will adapt quickly and probably open the skill gap even wider.

I don't believe that.  I'm fairly certain you'll control the lead plane in the squadron, and only one squadron at a time.  It will be WoWp dropped into WoWs.  Since you will only control one squadron at a time your influence on the game will be much more limited, and any skill gap will be no different than with any other ships in the game.  In other words, a much lowered skill floor, and much less influence is the goal.

Just now, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Problem with FPS usage of the planes is how accurate with that make them and how will AA work?

I have a feeling this is a the hold up.  I think a big part of the rework for WoWp last year was to make the game play fit WoWs too.  It makes sense to leverage the investment to have similar game play to encourage more crossover between the players in both games.  If warplanes players like the idea of planes and ships they will try WoWs, and vice versa.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,828
[SALVO]
Members
17,156 posts
17,832 battles
36 minutes ago, Yakuza137 said:

Again no If you have rts it's gonna be one sided no matter what lol for one person. The only way you can have it fair is to have two people of the same caliber vs each other other then that no RTS will not work.

This isn't entirely true.  The two players don't have to be of equal skill.  As long as they're of fairly similar skill, the lesser player can hold his own well enough for his team to win.  The problem comes when there's a great disparity in skill between the two CV players.  In the high tiers, there's only 1 CV per team, so all the pressure's on that single CV player to do his job.  And if he's greatly inferior to the enemy team's CV player, your team is in deep trouble, unless the superior CV player's team is really bad (which I have seen before, but not often).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
50 posts
1,839 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

This isn't entirely true.  The two players don't have to be of equal skill.  As long as they're of fairly similar skill, the lesser player can hold his own well enough for his team to win.  The problem comes when there's a great disparity in skill between the two CV players.  In the high tiers, there's only 1 CV per team, so all the pressure's on that single CV player to do his job.  And if he's greatly inferior to the enemy team's CV player, your team is in deep trouble, unless the superior CV player's team is really bad (which I have seen before, but not often).

 

Thats why RTS gameplay is the problem of Carriers for many players

Edited by Yakuza137

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,837 posts
11,180 battles
19 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

don't believe that.  I'm fairly certain you'll control the lead plane in the squadron, and only one squadron at a time.  It will be WoWp dropped into WoWs.  Since you will only control one squadron at a time your influence on the game will be much more limited, and any skill gap will be no different than with any other ships in the game.  In other words, a much lowered skill floor, and much less influence is the goal.

You do not know how it will work, and a bad player doesn't suddenly become good just because the skill level has been lowered, if the  skill level is lowered then better players will still be much better and a gap will widen but this is all subjective till we all see how it is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,244
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,727 posts
9,120 battles

The real issue with CV's is the obscene amount of micromanaging that is involved. I played Starfleet Command and that was heavy on the micromanaging and it is like tic tac toe micromanaging wise compared to CV's.

2 minutes ago, Hydrawlix said:

why not borrow cv play from battlestations?

Because in the little I have seen it is just a different kind of micromanaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

This is a strategy game. That's why at the beginning of a match, people try to work out a plan. Positioning is very important, and most people know how to hold a position against the various surface ships. But the mechanic to hold your position against a CV is almost entirely automated. So CVs are basically playing against bots. Switching from an RTS UI to an fps ui does nothing to change that. If your AA doesn't get better as you do, CVs will remain disproportionately powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[CAP]
Members
18 posts
8,162 battles
44 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

it reminds me of the wot light tanks,the vehicle with the highest skill gap and ceiling,need to understand spotting mechanics,camouflage,view range,radio range,camouflage after firing,use of terrains and so many other topics.

meanwhile a CV need to learn how to strafe,predict the enemy ship movements so he can torp well or cross drop,understand AA aura while at the same time paying attention to the minimap,managing his plane and other things.

the thing is....maybe the solution would be to make the ship more simple to play,overloading it with information increase the skill gap.

That was one of the thoughts I had after grinding up to T7 IJN (and T6 USN) CVs.  You play up with 3 squads maybe a 4th and then you start getting 6-8-9 squads.  This litters the sky with "sky cancer" in terms of spotting ships and becomes a RTS overload keeping track of all your planes and making sure they don't get sniped while you plan a strike while spotting DDs (and countering the other CV).  I enjoy T5-6 CV games. T7 starts and you get all the guys yelling at you to be their personal air force giving them air cover while managing 6 squads.

 

Some games in CVs just feels like 2 guys ruining each other's fun resulting in a low exp game, lost credits, and little reward for the air war stalemate.

 

In short, less squads to command would certainly lower the skill floor.  The CV might have more planes in reserve to make up for it and it would be less punishing when you lose your entire strike force to a surprise AA boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×