Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Kaga_Kai_Ni

A proposed new direction for the CV rework.

105 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles

 

Time for my honest opinions on the CV reworks as it stands so far. These are feelings I've been saving up for a while now but feel it's best to share.
As a CV player, we wanted and needed a rework. But this is not it.

This rework is both a mistake and exceptionally harmful for the future of the game.

But that's an exceptionally bold claim and completely my own opinion so I'd like to explain why.

Everything I'm going to be talking about here is limited to mine and others experiences playing carrier on both the live server as well as the first and second iteration of public tests.

So why do I think the current CV rework is bad for the game?

The removal of a large degree of skill, oversimplification and the massive change of style, in my opinion, is very bad for the game. The proposed rework as of the Public Test V2 had a huge issue with carrier sniping made it exceptionally easy for carriers to just DoT stack ships. Yet, it did so in what many found to be a boring an uninteresting game style which has sadly turned a lot of players off from the proposed changes.

One of the biggest complaints of myself and others is the removal of any real carrier on carrier interaction. The rework instead moves to a system where carriers are in the game solely to farm damage against each other and see who can get the most damage racked up. This is a boring and relatively uninteresting gameplay style which makes CV play in my opinion, even more, disconnected from the game than they are now. In the upcoming rework, should the enemy CV choose to attempt a strike against you, your own CV has very little he can actually do to prevent it. This means that random battles are becoming a 2 v 11 v 11, with the two teams CV's just attempting to farm damage and left unable to aid the ships of their team.

While I understand not many people play CV currently, and the rework likely will get more people to play the class. It's going to lose a somewhat large portion of the player base who will simply see it as the final nail in the coffin for the game. And my worry is, that's not something the game is likely to recover from.
What does WG plan to do to make up for the players who will quit once this change goes ahead, even more so if it's as many as some people are predicting?

You only need to see EU CC Farazeleth's opinions on the rework to realize he doesn't like it and so far everybody I've spoken to directly either seems to agree with his points or feel somewhat indifferent or even misguided. One claim I've heard a lot is "I'll still never touch carrier, but it'll be better for my battleships!" But I ask you. Is the new system of constant DoT stacking and infinite planes as we saw in the last test better?

So what are the options?

The way I see it, WG has a number of options for how to approach the CV rework as is.

  1. Gamble and continue ahead with the proposed rework.
    • Hope that it pays off. There's a chance it may, and I hope it does as I personally love this game and wouldn't want to lose this game.
  2. Return to the status quo.
    • Dangerous in my opinion. The current CV system does still need work, and while this would appease some people in the community, it would enrage others.
  3. A new direction for the rework finding a solid middle ground.

To me, option 3 is the most interesting and so I shall cover that.

A new rework?
So what could a new rework entail? 
Honestly, it could be anything, but I myself came up with my own somewhat detailed idea so I will put forward that.

The current CV system and CV rework both have problems within them, but also do somethings well. So I will use some aspects of each for my proposal.

To start with, I feel it should be based upon the current version of CV's using the RTS gameplay mechanics. This is because I feel it provides more flexibility, a more unique gameplay experience and more room for fun and interesting system that better represents CVs.

Strike: I personally feel, CV's do need a balance pass. The manner which they interact and perform their damage does give the CV an exceptional degree of control in matches and allows skilled CV players to pull numbers which other classes could only dream of. However, CV's aren't the only thing that should be covered in this "rebalancing."

The alpha strike should be reduced, scaling up the tiers (currently, Hosho and Hakuryu have the exact same torps.) with a progressive increase in alpha capability but never truly becoming a pure alpha damage dealer. With this, Damage over Time would become more important for CV captains, and just nuking ships would be much less common.

Anti Aircraft and Plane Health: Currently on the live version of the game, the plane on plane and plane on anti-aircraft interactions is decided by a complex RNG-based system which in short. Can troll either the AA ship or the CV and leaves very little transparency for either player to understand what is going on. However, the rework has made a move to a health-based system. THIS IS GOOD. Anti Aircraft should deal a somewhat consistent stream of damage when an aircraft is inside of its aura of fire. The plane health and damage output should be visible both to ships on the ground and the captain commanding the carrier. This means that both the player performing the attack and player being attacked have an indication of the state of the attack if it's likely to get through and can come up with a solid plan on how to react. The move to a solid health-based system would make AA more consistent and lead to fewer frustrations like "why did my AA minotaur only shoot down one plane?!"

Fighter Play: Fighter play is quite currently, the most complex mechanic of CVs as it stands. It's the aspect which scares the most players away from CV and also punishes new CV players the hardest. But I have a number of proposals to improve it. As it stands, strafing is currently a very powerful tool but also a noob trap. 

  • Limit the power of strafing, reduce how effective strafes are and provide more warning to the opposing carrier that a strafe is happening.
  • Remove the strafe out mechanic.
    • Personally, I have no issue with this. However, plenty of players do. And sometimes a compromise has to be met. I'd rather loose mechanics like these but build a newer and better CV system.
  • Make fighter dogfights "left clicks" based more about the performance of the aircraft instead of RNG.
    • Planes could have a number of performance statistics, such as turn time and speed which can decide how it will perform in a dogfight. In general, I'd expect US Aircraft to be some of the fastest, while IJN aircraft would have much better turn times. Fighters would be somewhat balanced, to compete against each other. American CV's would likely try to use strafes more, while IJN CV's would aim more for getting fighter locks where they could slowly tear apart the opposing squadrons.

User Interface: This is likely the most important aspect of my proposed rework.  The current UI is universally hated due to the vast array of bugs and lack of information. So clearly, the new UI would need to be improved. A wider, more zoomed out perspective (like that offered by some mods.) combined with a cleaner look which provides information strictly relevant to the captain would be ideal with some additional information then bundled in.

Other changes and improvements for UI:

  • Alerts could flash up on your air groups if enemy aircraft are spotted nearby, giving captains time to react to danger.
  • Selecting and targeting a ship should provide more information about this ship. It should display his different AA aura ranges as circles giving the CV more vital information and giving them a chance to plan their approach.
    • This should only affect ships targeted by the CV. If you wished to view multiple auras you would need to toggle between the ships. If a CV targets you, it should light up your priority target.
    • PT indicator could have a further mention that the CV is targeting you.

New Mechanics: 
 

The ability to modify aircraft loadouts in the game.

  • Select HE or AP DBs, Arm fighter aircraft with rockets or keep them as standard and the option to give TB's either shallow water or deep water torpedoes. Changing weapons would obviously take a little time before the aircraft are ready to launch.

    • DB's could choose between HE and AP bombs. AP bombs would have their effectiveness vs Battleships reduced while their effectiveness vs Cruisers would be heavily nerfed. (Perhaps similar to the DD AP change. This change could specifically ignore some targets. Stalingrad, Kronstadt, Alaska etc.) This would make planning attacks further in time more rewarding as the CV can now opt to use the correct armament for a specific purpose. This should be easy for the CV captain to modify to not make it overly complicated. Similar to how a Battleship may change to AP from time to time :Smile_teethhappy:

    • Fighters would have the option to be launched "bare" only with their primary armament or the option to launch with some light rockets. This would provide a relatively minor level of surface attack useful vs destroyers and other light ships. Should a carrier captain opt to take rockets, however, he should lose the option to perform strafes and some performance in dogfights. (The aircraft would have worse speed, turning time etc.)

    • Shallow water torpedos should deliver less damage. This is primarily to balance CV's interaction with destroyers. The option to mount harder hitting deep water torpedoes could be performed as the captain wishes.

  • When a captain goes into their standard 3rd person view of the ship, they should automatically receive control of any large caliber armament on the ship. Should that be a 457mm Naval Gun (Furious I'm looking at you) or a battery of Casemate 203mm guns (Kaga~).

    • This would provide the captain limited ability to defend himself from surface ships as well as limited offensive ability once he is out of planes. Once the captain leaves this view they should automatically return to functioning as standard secondary weapons.

  • Fuel! This is a mechanic would solve many peoples existing issues with the current CV system, the all-seeing eye. A fuel timer could slowly tick down on the aircraft after launch, with the squadron alerting the commander when it needs to return to base. Eventually, the squadron will start to rapidly loose planes due to fuel starvation. How much fuel an aircraft has could be a balance metric with different nations (IJN, USN) having more than other nations aircraft like the French, British, German and Italian Carrier Conversions.

    • Should Wargaming wish to make this mechanic simpler? Once the timer has expired the squadron would instead automatically return directly to the carrier. This means you only have X amount of time for a strike but can not suicide planes just to keep a target spotted.

  • Vision provided by the CV should function in a new manner. When a plane first spots a ship, it will only be visible for the carrier and on the minimap of other ships. This could be the "target classification time". Once the target has been identified after X amount of time has passed, it would become visible to all ships.

    • This is based on the already proposed changes to radar mechanics which were mentioned at the Anaheim event. 

      Spoiler

      Another idea is in adding a delay to the effect of Surveillance Radar for allies. In this iteration outlines of the ships detected by Radar won't render for allies for X number of seconds. However, all detected targets will immediately appear on the minimap. Importantly, the interaction of the ship that uses the Surveillance Radar and the target that it detects, remains unchanged with no delay being added.

      Source:

       

       

       

      Carrier "LITE" Aviation Cruisers and Battleships:
      This is an often requested feature that I feel would not work in the proposed rework due to how hands-on captains have to be with their usage.
      However, I'm of the opinion that CAV and BBV could be made to function somewhat well with a system based off of the current RTS style CV interface.

      The captain would sail the ship normally 90% of the time, using his guns, torpedoes, and anti-aircraft to proceed in combat against enemy surface ships! However, upon toggling a specific consumable it would move them to the carrier map. From this screen, captains can launch scout bombers. They would have the options to equip either a single torpedo or HE bomb. This would keep them relatively simple to operate while providing some combat effectiveness.

      This class of ship would NOT have fighters available to it. This is because aircraft is not the primary method of attack, but an alternative method to aid the ship in combat. To further this, these aircraft would only have the automatic attack option available to them. (No alt attacks.)

      For matchmaking purposes, they would count as a standard cruiser with the exception of being limited to at most, two per team.

      I expect this class of ship to play out like a standard cruiser, trading some of its conventional firepower for the option to launch aircraft.

      No fighters and limited numbers of aircraft would emphasize
      that these ships are NOT carriers, and should not try to act as one, but instead should use their aircraft to aid them in combat.

      The limitation to auto drops would keep the ships simple to operate without allowing them to become overpowered by combing heavy gun power with manual aircraft attacks.

      The fuel loads for these aircraft would limit their endurance preventing their usage as long-term scouts, as in general, they would have much less fuel than comparable carrier aircraft. To compensate for this, these ships would be able to get closer to the combat, however, thanks to their primary armament, smaller size, and more well-rounded armor schemes.



      Tl;dr - Year of the CV 20XX 
      I understand many people will have different idea's on how CV's should be reworked. Some may like the current system more, like my proposal or like the old system! Please all of you, share your opinions! Positive or negative! Only conversation can find what the community truly wants and will lead to us all being better off.

      Whatever Wargaming do, I hope it works out for the game in the long run and hopefully we continue to get a great game!

  • Cool 39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles

Don't you just love posting early because you press ctrl + enter not shift + enter? 

:Smile_facepalm:

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,696
[-Y-]
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
5,272 posts
7,571 battles

Lots of interesting ideas. I just hope somebody is listening (and not just pretending)/ +1

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[DAKI]
Supertester
18 posts
4,014 battles

Rip for posting earlier than you intended, though I do honestly agree for the most part. I feel like with how the community is taking the rework at the moment, an alternative should be looked at.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,630 posts
5,241 battles

The line changes are what irritate me the most. I don't understand what the hell wargaming is doing. They need to stop, and they need to listen. 
 

15 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

It's going to lose a somewhat large portion of the player base who will simply see it as the final nail in the coffin for the game.

Despite what ships people "main" in, people want a fair fight. Kaga is correct on this, people don't want to play an unfair game. They will leave.

16 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Hope that it pays off. There's a chance it may, and I hope it does as I personally love this game and wouldn't want to lose this game.

I wouldn't want to lose it either, and I won't walk away personally due to the money I've spent on it, but honestly, many others will walk away with there head down. 

18 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

The alpha strike should be reduced, scaling up the tiers (currently, Hosho and Hakuryu have the exact same torps.) with a progressive increase in alpha capability but never truly becoming a pure alpha damage dealer. With this, Damage over Time would become more important for CV captains, and just nuking ships would be much less common.

I agree, while carriers clearly are strong, they should have a normal power progression. GZ is a poster child for this, were a CV nukes an enemey ship. Another example is when a Japanese CV rapes you with its entire complement of torpedo bombers.

20 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

However, the rework has made a move to a health-based system. THIS IS GOOD. Anti Aircraft should deal a somewhat consistent stream of damage when an aircraft is inside of its aura of fire. The plane health and damage output should be visible both to ships on the ground and the captain commanding the carrier. This means that both the player performing the attack and player being attacked have an indication of the state of the attack if it's likely to get through and can come up with a solid plan on how to react. The move to a solid health-based system would make AA more consistent and lead to fewer frustrations like "why did my AA minotaur only shoot down one plane?!"

I agree with this as well. AA should be consistent and makes sense why literally the current system lets strong and crazy AA builds literally have a lucky role chance of not shooting down a single plane. HP for planes works better, and I hope they keep it.
 

23 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Remove the strafe out mechanic.

  • Personally, I have no issue with this. However, plenty of players do. And sometimes a compromise has to be met. I'd rather loose mechanics like these but build a newer and better CV system.

 

I would rather they do this, as the strafe system seems to be the #1 problem with all CV gameplay. People just don't like it. It's hard, complicated, and unlike every other attack, you can't have an "auto" version of it.
 

 

25 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

User Interface: This is likely the most important aspect of my proposed rework.  The current UI is universally hated due to the vast array of bugs and lack of information. So clearly, the new UI would need to be improved. A wider, more zoomed out perspective (like that offered by some mods.) combined with a cleaner look which provides information strictly relevant to the captain would be ideal with some additional information then bundled in.

Other changes and improvements for UI:

  • Alerts could flash up on your air groups if enemy aircraft are spotted nearby, giving captains time to react to danger.
  • Selecting and targeting a ship should provide more information about this ship. It should display his different AA aura ranges as circles giving the CV more vital information and giving them a chance to plan their approach.
    • This should only affect ships targeted by the CV. If you wished to view multiple auras you would need to toggle between the ships. If a CV targets you, it should light up your priority target.
    • PT indicator could have a further mention that the CV is targeting you.

I am going to add to this in general and say CV gameplay should be limited to 2 squadrons in the air at a time instead of one, basically with stand-by squadrons waiting to be launched. The fighter could always be up but the 2 other squadrons would be player selectable.
 

 

27 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

The ability to modify aircraft loadouts in the game.

  • Select HE or AP DBs, Arm fighter aircraft with rockets or keep them as standard and the option to give TB's either shallow water or deep water torpedoes. Changing weapons would obviously take a little time before the aircraft are ready to launch.

    • DB's could choose between HE and AP bombs. AP bombs would have their effectiveness vs Battleships reduced while their effectiveness vs Cruisers would be heavily nerfed. (Perhaps similar to the DD AP change. This change could specifically ignore some targets. Stalingrad, Kronstadt, Alaska etc.) This would make planning attacks further in time more rewarding as the CV can now opt to use the correct armament for a specific purpose. This should be easy for the CV captain to modify to not make it overly complicated. Similar to how a Battleship may change to AP from time to time :Smile_teethhappy:

    • Fighters would have the option to be launched "bare" only with their primary armament or the option to launch with some light rockets. This would provide a relatively minor level of surface attack useful vs destroyers and other light ships. Should a carrier captain opt to take rockets, however, he should lose the option to perform strafes and some performance in dogfights. (The aircraft would have worse speed, turning time etc.)

    • Shallow water torpedos should deliver less damage. This is primarily to balance CV's interaction with destroyers. The option to mount harder hitting deep water torpedoes could be performed as the captain wishes.

I totally agree. The carrier should be able to adjust ordinance as needed ingame. I would say that fighters and rocket aircraft be selectable only in port as to which one you want, but TB and DB would have ingame changeable ordinance. 
 

28 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

When a captain goes into their standard 3rd person view of the ship, they should automatically receive control of any large caliber armament on the ship. Should that be a 457mm Naval Gun (Furious I'm looking at you) or a battery of Casemate 203mm guns (Kaga~).

  • This would provide the captain limited ability to defend himself from surface ships as well as limited offensive ability once he is out of planes. Once the captain leaves this view they should automatically return to functioning as standard secondary weapons.

I am not sure how I feel about this. GZ anyone?

29 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Should Wargaming wish to make this mechanic simpler? Once the timer has expired the squadron would instead automatically return directly to the carrier. This means you only have X amount of time for a strike but can not suicide planes just to keep a target spotted.

I agree with this plan more. Aircraft should have an up time. Right now they have unlimited fuel. It would make more sense to pressure the CV captain into making a logical and skillful choice rather than leaving them in the wind.
 

 

30 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Vision provided by the CV should function in a new manner. When a plane first spots a ship, it will only be visible for the carrier and on the minimap of other ships. This could be the "target classification time". Once the target has been identified after X amount of time has passed, it would become visible to all ships.

Yes, I agree with this all the way. Also, I would further say that the spotting aircraft do should also reach ships on the map after X amount of time, based on distance from that ship.

We ALL need to raise hell with WG over these changes. SOMETHING has to be done in order to keep the 6 ships in a line, and to keep the gameplay interesting and worthwhile. Amen Kaga, raise hell around here! People need to get involved with the process and hold WG's hairbrained ideas accountable!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles

Because of my posting early I missed a section.

I added it to the original post, but I'll paste it here too!

 

44 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Carrier "LITE" Aviation Cruisers and Battleships:
This is an often requested feature that I feel would not work in the proposed rework due to how hands-on captains have to be with their usage.
However, I'm of the opinion that CAV and BBV could be made to function somewhat well with a system based off of the current RTS style CV interface.

The captain would sail the ship normally 90% of the time, using his guns, torpedoes, and anti-aircraft to proceed in combat against enemy surface ships! However, upon toggling a specific consumable it would move them to the carrier map. From this screen, captains can launch scout bombers. They would have the options to equip either a single torpedo or HE bomb. This would keep them relatively simple to operate while providing some combat effectiveness.

This class of ship would NOT have fighters available to it. This is because aircraft is not the primary method of attack, but an alternative method to aid the ship in combat. To further this, these aircraft would only have the automatic attack option available to them. (No alt attacks.)

For matchmaking purposes, they would count as a standard cruiser with the exception of being limited to at most, two per team.

I expect this class of ship to play out like a standard cruiser, trading some of its conventional firepower for the option to launch aircraft.

No fighters and limited numbers of aircraft would emphasize
that these ships are NOT carriers, and should not try to act as one, but instead should use their aircraft to aid them in combat.

The limitation to auto drops would keep the ships simple to operate without allowing them to become overpowered by combing heavy gun power with manual aircraft attacks.

The fuel loads for these aircraft would limit their endurance preventing their usage as long-term scouts, as in general, they would have much less fuel than comparable carrier aircraft. To compensate for this, these ships would be able to get closer to the combat, however, thanks to their primary armament, smaller size, and more well-rounded armor schemes.

 
1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,998
[SALVO]
Members
17,651 posts
18,478 battles

For crying out loud, enough with these walls of text.  I'm one who likes verbose posts over one liners, but come on.  There's verbose and there's burying the reader in so much text that their eyes glaze over.

Edited by Crucis
  • Bad 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,696
[-Y-]
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
5,272 posts
7,571 battles
10 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Carrier "LITE" Aviation Cruisers and Battleships:
This is an often requested feature that I feel would not work in the proposed rework due to how hands-on captains have to be with their usage.
However, I'm of the opinion that CAV and BBV could be made to function somewhat well with a system based off of the current RTS style CV interface.

I think this would also bridge a gap, both in content, gameplay, and community terms. Hybrids are not currently workable in WOWS, everything from battlecarriers with underwater torpedo launchers or bb guns on the foredecks to WW1 era seaplane tenders with their tiny loadouts of torp bombers. Besides the content, their addition, (alongside player controlled scout bombers launched by cruisers and battleships),  would offer far more integrated gameplay, and encourage greater empathy among players for a diverse range of playstyles and gameplay opportunities. Because the rework is the opposite of this, the rework seems determined to cleanse the game of complexity, or layering.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,487
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,324 posts
2,050 battles

I don't really know if I have room to comment here, because I'm not a CV player (laughs in having two Hosho games under his belt), but I do agree with a lot of what is said here. 

 

I personally don't like the idea that CVs cannot really interact with each other. The inability of them to control fighters removes their ability to defend themselves and allied ships, which is in my experience a very important factor - having a mobile AA powerhouse via fighters to help cover certain ships, or boost air-to-air combat effectiveness by engaging over friendly ships, is a mutually beneficial relationship for CVs and their friendly ships, and without fighters, CVs may as well be off-the-map artillery pieces.

 

I do like the idea of toning down alpha in favor of DoT, and also making AA less transparent - it's frustrating to not be able to rely on the Capitan points you might have invested in your AA build two actually do their job, and there's pretty much no other captain skill that can screw with you so badly via RNG. Everything else is hard buffs of a much more reliable nature. Likewise, in regards to alpha damage it's annoying as hell. People don't like getting alpha blapped, and it's frustrating as hell. It sucks when you get detonated by a stray shell, especially when you didn't make any mistakes in your play. It's frustrating to get lolpenned and demolished by a battleship from across the map in a cruiser - although at least in that case you can dodge or angle. However, it also sucks, as a battleship, to have a situation where you know your AA can't do anything to save you, and you can see the aircraft coming in that, regardless of your performance - will end you from full health. *Cough GZ*. That's not a fun mechanic, for a player to get instantly removed by something they have no hope of stopping or avoiding. 

 

As far as CV secondaries go - to be honest I do like that idea. I don't exactly thing they should have the same efficiency as the main battery of other ships, but generally speaking their crappy arrangements will already serve to that purpose. CVs being useless after exhausting their aircraft is kind of annoying, because all they're good for is a damage piñata to distract the enemy. I don't see why they shouldn't have the option to take and active role defending themselves at the very least.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

For crying out loud, enough with these walls of text.  I'm one who likes verbose poses over one liners, but come on.  There's verbose and there's burying the reader in so much text that their eyes glaze over.

While I get what you mean, the CV rework is a very complicated subject and I feel like providing more information was important for this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,696
[-Y-]
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
5,272 posts
7,571 battles
35 minutes ago, Crucis said:

For crying out loud, enough with these walls of text.  I'm one who likes verbose poses over one liners, but come on.  There's verbose and there's burying the reader in so much text that their eyes glaze over.

The CV rework is complex, it does require patient reading skills to make sense of the many problems which are raised by it. It also requires commentators who are prepared to spend their time composing lengthy and well written criticisms/ Of course, if it is too much for you to read, don't read it, and don't reply or react to it. It isn't hard.

(You might be more at home on the EU forum, 4+2 lettre phrases are more commonly employed there to discuss feelings.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[LANCE]
Members
359 posts
3,609 battles

Some interesting reading.

Im not a current CV player although I’ve dabbled a little and have played on in both of the reworks so far and hopefully will try this 3rd rendition.

That being said I think one of the main issues/complaints that people had regarding CV’s was their ability to be in multiple places at once e.g. perma spotting a DD while also being able to launch attacks against multiple other ships gives the CV a LOT of power. This is partly the disparity between a good CV player and a not so good CV player making or breaking a teams win chance.

Another consideration that people seem to forget is the push of WoWs onto the console. This I believe is a big factor in the changes that are being made. While some may be able to control multiple squadrons on a console I bet the vast majority wouldn’t be able to.

The current rework as it stands is somewhat interesting but at the same time is definitely dumbed down and gets stale very quickly.

I do feel the pain of those that play CV’s as their main or only ship type and hope that something changes that will please both sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,998
[SALVO]
Members
17,651 posts
18,478 battles
12 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

The CV rework is complex, it does require patient reading skills to make sense of the many problems which are raised by it. It also requires commentators who are prepared to spend their time composing lengthy and well written criticisms/ Of course, if it is too much for you to read, don't read it, and don't reply or react to it. It isn't hard.

(You might be more at home on the EU forum, 4+2 lettre phrases are more commonly employed there to discuss feelings.)

I don't have the slightest idea what this means.  I did say that I like more verbose posts than most people.  I'm not into one liners, etc.  But it's just not necessary to write a freaking dissertation either.

  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
201 posts
5,500 battles

The moment you said to base a rework on the current RTS model, your suggestion became an instant no, no matter what merit the rest of you suggestion has. This change is being pushed by the game's expansion to console play, which can't support the RTS system in current use. It's a safe bet the decision to axe the RTS came from ownership at the top in Cyprus and not from the designers in Russia. If that is the case, the RTS system is 100% dead, end of story, beyond all doubt, and no amount of complaining from players will change that at this point.

Edited by Shannon_Lindsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles
7 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

The moment you said to base a rework on the current RTS model, your suggestion became an instant no, no matter what merit the rest of you suggestion has. This change is being pushed by the games's expansion to console play, which can't support the RTS system in current use. It's a safe bet the decision to axe the RTS came from ownership at the top in Cyprus and not from the designers in Russia. If that is the case, the RTS system in 100% dead, end of story, beyond all doubt, and no amount of complaining from players will change that at this point.

An important note on that. Nobody ever said WoWS and WoWS Legends (the Console variant) had to work the same. And your claims that "RTS" is dead is false. WoWS Blitz still uses RTS, still will use RTS and has actually expanded on RTS recently while also operating manual secondaries. 

While it's possible this CV change is because of WoWS Legends, I think the argument that "Because a console release is coming, we have to be shafted too" is not a good attitude.

We should aim to have the best possible CV system for those of us who play here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
201 posts
5,500 battles
1 minute ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

An important note on that. Nobody ever said WoWS and WoWS Legends (the Console variant) had to work the same. And your claims that "RTS" is dead is false. WoWS Blitz still uses RTS, still will use RTS and has actually expanded on RTS recently while also operating manual secondaries. 

While it's possible this CV change is because of WoWS Legends, I think the argument that "Because a console release is coming, we have to be shafted too" is a good attitude.

We should aim to have the best possible CV system for those of us who play here.

Don't misunderstand, I am a CV main, and I would just take away manual drops and turn strafing into a simple dogfighting exit at the cost of a fighter and call it a day if it were my decision. Point in fact, strafing is the single biggest skill gap creator in all CV play. If strafing were gone, more people would play CVs past tier 7, and artillery ship players might actually sometimes set their ships and captain skills in ways that don't leave them completely vulnerable to death from above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[RKN]
Members
3 posts
5,550 battles

>When a captain goes into their standard 3rd person view of the ship, they should automatically receive control of any large caliber armament on the ship. Should that be a 457mm Naval Gun (Furious I'm looking at you) or a battery of Casemate 203mm guns (Kaga~).

Ooooh. I really like this idea. That would be a lot of fun.

I'd also like to see stuff like the Ōyodo and Ise class's become playable ships, if WG can figure out how to make that work.

Very nice write up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3 posts
6,158 battles

My friends came up with another approach to me in our discussion: players can choose to meet CV or not in random battle; but I understand that will make MM harder given that there's not a lot of wows player anyway
And I personally is against any CV rework because it will make competitive game playing become less interesting (pointing at kots)

and btw

1 minute ago, F1NN1NG said:

I'd also like to see stuff like the Ōyodo and Ise class's become playable ships, if WG can figure out how to make that work.

yes I also want to see Ooyodo and Is, and also Tone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles
4 minutes ago, F1NN1NG said:

>When a captain goes into their standard 3rd person view of the ship, they should automatically receive control of any large caliber armament on the ship. Should that be a 457mm Naval Gun (Furious I'm looking at you) or a battery of Casemate 203mm guns (Kaga~).

Ooooh. I really like this idea. That would be a lot of fun.

I'd also like to see stuff like the Ōyodo and Ise class's become playable ships, if WG can figure out how to make that work.

Very nice write up.

I did write up how BBVs and CAV's could work with those two (and the Mogami conversion) in mind ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,405
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,231 posts
9,570 battles

Skill in your CV world is who micromanages/multitasks the best. Do you really think that is good for the game since currently the CV player that wins the air war gives his team something on the order of an 80% chance to win.

Is that good for the long term life of the game having people getting into a match knowing that depending on one ships performance that their win chance to win is going to be impacted that much by one player?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DAKI]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
756 posts
4,396 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

Skill in your CV world is who micromanages/multitasks the best. Do you really think that is good for the game since currently the CV player that wins the air war gives his team something on the order of an 80% chance to win.

Is that good for the long term life of the game having people getting into a match knowing that depending on one ships performance that their win chance to win is going to be impacted that much by one player?

Limiting the strike and spotting capability massively lower the impact a CV has towards victory.

It's why Hiryu is actually better for winning than Saipan. Just killing planes does not win games.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,405
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,231 posts
9,570 battles
Just now, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Limiting the strike and spotting capability massively lower the impact a CV has towards victory.

It's why Hiryu is actually better for winning than Saipan. Just killing planes does not win games.

Yeah but it does not completely address the multitasking/micromanaging of the current CV system. There was a point that ditching alt attacks would have benefited the game but that time is long past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
2,411 posts
4,023 battles
2 hours ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

The removal of a large degree of skill, oversimplification

they know their target audience

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
13 posts
13,889 battles

There's a lot of work to be done with CVs...and personally I think the two biggest flaws in CV game play RN are the UI and the player interaction between the CV player and the person playing a ship.

 

I'm by no means a great CV player, but I've played enough of them now to not be a pleb in them...and the bloody UI is so dam annoying.

It sometimes feels like your biggest opponent is the UI itself because of how annoying it can be.  

As for Surface Ships vs Planes interaction...it's not fun either for anyone.  If you're a Shima who gets found out by a Super Unicum Midway...you die.  If you're a full AA Minotaur who gets found out by same Midway...he hates you and tries to drop something else because of how powerful your AA is.  If you're a Wooster and you press Y on his strike...his planes drop like flies and their attacks are scattered...A.K.A you 'outplay' him with the press of a button...and if you don't have DF AA ready and he flies over with Tier X AP Dive Bombers...you get 100-0 clapped nine times out of ten.  

The third issue with CVs is the skill imbalance between CV players potentially and just how big of an influence that can have on a battle.  There's a reason the highest and lowest ends of the WR spectrum involve people who play CVs a lot.  Facing a CV with a 70%+ WR and having a CV on your team with a 40% or lower WR are the two most un fun types of matches you can be in...and good luck if it's a combination of both because that game is over at the loading screen. 

 There is a lot wrong with current CV game play and I won't text wall it because Kaga already did and i agree with most of what he said, but the CV rework appears to have completely removed all semblance of skill from the class, which has pissed off a decent portion of the player base and rightfully so.  There is an in between that WG is not trying to reach that they should for the sake of the game.

'But TPN most of the player base likes this change!'

Most of the player base couldn't find their [edited]in the dark with a map, a flashlight, and written instructions.  They're too busy consuming their daily intake of glue from an industrial sized glue bottle.  This also happens to be the player base WG is continuing to pamper to, but that's for another thread.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×