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

WoWS Dev Blog: New CV Gameplay Coming With 0.8.0

310 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

572
[NUWES]
Members
2,912 posts
9,653 battles
46 minutes ago, Xlap said:

The big issue is that WG will make the bulk of the balancing in the live servers. There will be a lot of OP and UP things going on. This will be very chaotic.

There is no choice with that. There is only so much testing you can ever do in a test environment. At some point it has to be released into the wild to let the whole live population at it to see what is working. Even in WoWs that's why the live game is different from the Alpha and Beta. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
5 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Many of you are still pushing the 'You must go back!' button as if that's something WG is going to do.  They're not going to.  For good or ill, it's WoWP 2.0 all over again.  The decision was made weeks or months ago, and they're not going back.  CV 2.0 is coming and CV 1.0 is going away, no matter how loud you scream or how loud you threaten to leave, or if you indeed leave.  

Wanting to keep the current CV gameplay, or just tweak it, and keep the RTS, is just tilting at windmills at this point.

Regardless of your opinion about new vs old, the old is not a choice.  Ranting or giving them tons of feedback how to 'fix' the old is wasting your and WG's time.  They're going to look at it, and toss it in the trash, and you'll just be pissed off.

If you want input, give constructive feedback toward fixing the new gameplay.  If you want to vent about them not keeping the old, that's fine, but that's all it is.  You will change nothing by doing so, except maybe being able to vent your spleen a bit.
 

Good luck.  

Personally I find it ridiculous that people imagine in the two-three years that a major CV rework has been on the table WG didn't try many variations of how to change RTS CV to work. We know the current rework is at least the third, and probably the fourth, attempt to fix CV. WG doesn't tell us everything they test behind closed doors and for good reason.

If RTS CV was salvageable, it would have been. WG had a lot of time and testers to try and fix it, and it would be much easier if it could be fixed as the current CV rework represents a major outlay of expensive programmer time. WG is a for-profit company. Do the math.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,059 posts
2,524 battles
6 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

For all people's complaints on the forum, this is really the biggest outstanding issue.  I've been in the tests and I never got a chance to see how fully-AA specced ships actually perform because you couldn't really do much AA speccing. Hopefully they'll enable all the captain skills and AA modules in the last couple of test phases so we can see. 

um they did that in Third Round. Modules and Skills were active.

 

Now I am the answer to the question; Can the Midway defeat a Worcester, fully AA-specced?

Yes. IFHE Rockets which nicely reduced the 76mm mounts and knocked out the turrets. Then dive bombers to finished me off. My mistake was getting caught by the Midway alone.

Edited by Hurlbut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,262
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,770 posts
34 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Many of you are still pushing the 'You must go back!' button as if that's something WG is going to do.  They're not going to.  For good or ill, it's WoWP 2.0 all over again.  The decision was made weeks or months ago, and they're not going back.  CV 2.0 is coming and CV 1.0 is going away, no matter how loud you scream or how loud you threaten to leave, or if you indeed leave.  

Wanting to keep the current CV gameplay, or just tweak it, and keep the RTS, is just tilting at windmills at this point.

Regardless of your opinion about new vs old, the old is not a choice.  Ranting or giving them tons of feedback how to 'fix' the old is wasting your and WG's time.  They're going to look at it, and toss it in the trash, and you'll just be pissed off.

If you want input, give constructive feedback toward fixing the new gameplay.  If you want to vent about them not keeping the old, that's fine, but that's all it is.  You will change nothing by doing so, except maybe being able to vent your spleen a bit.
 

Good luck.  

 

There is no way to fix the new gameplay.

I will keep saying that until there is no more WOWS to say it about.

And you, and the other guy, demanding repeatedly that I shut up about it, and yawn-emoting every post I make about it, won't stop me from saying it until there's no more WOWS to say it about. 

A year from now, if they're asking for carrier feedback, I will be saying the same damn things I've been saying since this news first hit.  This is a mistake, it is bad for the game, it is bad for carrier gameplay, and it can only end in disaster.

 

E:  and right on queue, there's the pathetic gutless trolling coward with his little emote now.

 

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

 

There is no way to fix the new gameplay.

And I will keep saying that until there is no more WOWS to say it about.

Fun fact: people did this during alpha too. Do you like current WoWS? People complained to no end about it. They left. Game's still here.

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[FGNE]
Members
876 posts
4,082 battles
3 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

There is no way to fix the new gameplay.

And I will keep saying that until there is no more WOWS to say it about.

I found it to be entertaining, ... if unpolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[NUWES]
Members
2,912 posts
9,653 battles
1 minute ago, Hurlbut said:

um they did that in Third Round. Modules and Skills were active.

Hmm. That's odd, mine never were. Then again my DBs were bugged and wouldn't drop bombs either. Oh well, hopefully I'll still be in on the next round and can try it with full AA builds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,939
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,836 posts
11,247 battles
53 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

Howdy Folks!  This is obviously a very controversial change and we are monitoring your feedback to relay to the team.  Things are still in Testing and we have and continue to review every bit of data (including your thoughts) we can. 

We just ask you remain patient, participate in the upcoming Public Test and continue to provide us your experiences. 

Except that it sure as hells feels like you guys are just shoving it all aside and ignoring it because if your company was listening at all, they would not be saying "Good news everyone, CV rework in 8.0 and UK CV's with them". Even some of the Pro-Rework people agree it's nowhere near that ready. Let alone those of us to put it mildly, unhappy with the rework. Which funny enough goes into why I posted what I did yesterday - the fact i feels like were ignored. Only ones I've seen going "yep, this is fine do it now" are the crowd that want CV's dead and removed from the game. 

 

And where is the point with how controversial and how the tides turning because it affects all ships, not just CV's, that you guys maybe shelve it and just fix what we have because it's not unfixable if we make the correct changes for once.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,262
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,770 posts
4 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Personally I find it ridiculous that people imagine in the two-three years that a major CV rework has been on the table WG didn't try many variations of how to change RTS CV to work. We know the current rework is at least the third, and probably the fourth, attempt to fix CV. WG doesn't tell us everything they test behind closed doors and for good reason.

If RTS CV was salvageable, it would have been. WG had a lot of time and testers to try and fix it, and it would be much easier if it could be fixed as the current CV rework represents a major outlay of expensive programmer time. WG is a for-profit company. Do the math.

 

First, we know they didn't try a damn thing to fix the current interface, because they spent the last year plus making things worse and driving players away from it, without ever addressing the actual problems (and adding more problems, see sales gimmicks, see removing AS builds from USN, see GZ, see AP bombs, see wonky torp spreads, see free strafe-break, etc, etc, etc, etc)

Second, the real motivation behind this change, console compatibility, quite plainly meant that they never had any interest in or intention of trying to fix the RTS-light interface. 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[NUWES]
Members
2,912 posts
9,653 battles
36 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Same here.

I will be hitting the PTS for that patch, and I will be filling up my feedback survey with just how big of a mistake they're making.

 

Don't you think you should actually play it first before you decide it's a mistake? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,064 posts
5,716 battles
5 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

um they did that in Third Round. Modules and Skills were active.

 

Now I am the answer to the question; Can the Midway defeat a Worcester, fully AA-specced?

Yes. IFHE Rockets which nicely reduced the 76mm mounts and knocked out the turrets. Then dive bombers to finished me off. My mistake was getting caught by the Midway alone.

I pretty much found that any carrier can take out any ship..  however, the amount of time invested can be considerable.   I actually went out of my way to target some live players during the testing and found it crazy hard to be much more than a nuisance to player driven DDs... and AA spec'd cruisers took a ton of time invested to finally get them unless I got lucky.    It' going start getting to be about investment of time for damage given.. its going to be a lot different game for CVs after this.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,064 posts
5,716 battles
Just now, Tzarevitch said:

Don't you think you should actually play it first before you decide it's a mistake? 

Overrated!    :Smile_facepalm: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,262
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,770 posts
30 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

Don't you think you should actually play it first before you decide it's a mistake? 

No.  The videos of others playing it are MORE than enough to see what a looming disaster it is. 

Or are you of the blinkered belief that a person just cannot know if something is going to work, or if something is going to be to their liking, without actually trying it, and that nothing can be obviously bad simply based on observation?   If so, here's a big bowl of poop for you to try -- after all, if you haven't tried it, you don't know if you like it or not, right?  :Smile_smile:

 

I would have played it anyway, just to get past this "but you haven't tried it" garbage and all the pathetic gatekeeping that people were inevitably going to try... but the testing was locked behind invites and the WGC malware.

 

E:  and I see the gutless one has found this post as well -- guess some people have nothing better to do with forum time than anonymously stalk other posters.

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
537
[-N-]
Members
2,156 posts
14,580 battles
3 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

Don't you think you should actually play it first before you decide it's a mistake? 

I played all 3 Betas.  And it was no where near ready for PTS at the time, so they will shove this through like the GZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
Just now, KilljoyCutter said:

First, we know they didn't try a damn thing to fix the current interface, because they spent the last year plus making things worse and driving players away from it, without ever addressing the actual problems (and adding more problems, see sales gimmicks, see removing AS builds from USN, see GZ, see AP bombs, see wonky torp spreads, see free strafe-break, etc, etc, etc, etc)

Second, the real motivation behind this change, console compatibility, quite plainly meant that they never had any interest in or intention of trying to fix the RTS-light interface. 

I'm not going to play this game with you where you whine all about how things you liked got taken away because they were mechanically problematic. Yes yes, you loved AS CV. AS CV is and always was toxic. Deal. All the changes that went to live for CV have fairly obvious causes, I'm not going to walk through explaining them.

The second is pure FUD. I don't know if you're a victim of it or are knowingly spreading it, but it's scummy either way. Yes, yes, you want to try and rile PC gamers up against the console plebs(/sarcasm) to serve your aims.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,262
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,770 posts
2 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

I'm not going to play this game with you where you whine all about how things you liked got taken away because they were mechanically problematic. Yes yes, you loved AS CV. AS CV is and always was toxic. Deal. All the changes that went to live for CV have fairly obvious causes, I'm not going to walk through explaining them.

The second is pure FUD. I don't know if you're a victim of it or are knowingly spreading it, but it's scummy either way. Yes, yes, you want to try and rile PC gamers up against the console plebs(/sarcasm) to serve your aims.

The only thing toxic around here is every one of you supporting this change and trying to shout down and belittle anyone who isn't on your little bandwagon.

And if you can't see that the console version is the real underlying cause, I can't help you with that.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,059 posts
2,524 battles
Just now, Rouxi said:

How will even number only CV work with the up coming t9 ranked?

simple: no CV allowed in T9 Ranked. Or allow T8 or T10 or both CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
Members
1,291 posts
9,884 battles
Just now, Hurlbut said:

simple: no CV allowed in T9 Ranked. Or allow T8 or T10 or both CVs.

If we get the rework at the same time as ranked and t10 CV are allowed in then some t9 ships won't be viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,262
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,770 posts
1 hour ago, Radar_X said:

Howdy Folks!  This is obviously a very controversial change and we are monitoring your feedback to relay to the team.  Things are still in Testing and we have and continue to review every bit of data (including your thoughts) we can. 

We just ask you remain patient, participate in the upcoming Public Test and continue to provide us your experiences. 

The critical decision was already made and set in stone before any of us had a chance to give any feedback.

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[FGNE]
Members
876 posts
4,082 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The critical decision was already made and set in stone before any of us had a chance to give any feedback.

Where have you been these past months?... and BTW the WGC has been working flawlessly for me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,262
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,770 posts
40 minutes ago, CO_Valle said:

Where have you been these past months?

The critical decision was made before any of us learned about the rework -- that is, the decision to impose this rework, ruin the game for a subset of players, negate any effort, time, money, etc put into the carriers under the old interface, and then lie about why it was being done and insult us with comments about how we can't handle more than one thing at once.

 

40 minutes ago, CO_Valle said:

and BTW the WGC has been working flawlessly for me.

Yes, working flawlessly, all the while engaged in all the behaviors that make it malware -- trying to force itself to run  in the background, phoning home to WG, digging around in the drives, hijacking the computer to serve as an update server for WG,  etc. 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,603
[WOLF3]
Members
25,190 posts
22,203 battles
2 hours ago, AdmiralPiett said:

They need to start talking AA. It is literally the other half of CV gameplay, and it will impact everyone.

There's been zero word on AA.  AA is going to be complicated because you got greatly varying degrees of AA suites on all these ships, and how AA Builds vs Non-AA Builds are against aircraft.  Did they even test AA out?  I haven't heard sh*t.

34 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

For all people's complaints on the forum, this is really the biggest outstanding issue.  I've been in the tests and I never got a chance to see how fully-AA specced ships actually perform because you couldn't really do much AA speccing. Hopefully they'll enable all the captain skills and AA modules in the last couple of test phases so we can see. 

How the hell are they pushing the CV Revamp out without even testing AA???

 

Is a Cleveland, Worcester, NC, Montana AA going to even be worth it to spec into?  Or will it be too much?

What would happen with the bad AA ships like a Tirpitz?

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[NUWES]
Members
2,912 posts
9,653 battles
2 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

I pretty much found that any carrier can take out any ship..  however, the amount of time invested can be considerable.   I actually went out of my way to target some live players during the testing and found it crazy hard to be much more than a nuisance to player driven DDs... and AA spec'd cruisers took a ton of time invested to finally get them unless I got lucky.    It' going start getting to be about investment of time for damage given.. its going to be a lot different game for CVs after this.     

My big issues with the AA were: 

 1. Defensive Fire - I couldn't figure out what this was actually doing (if anything) other than more damage. I wasn't sure if any of the ships I attacked were using it and was it affecting the drops at all.

2. Torpedo Dispersion - Sometimes I got crazy torpedo run paths that were like 60-70 degrees apart for no clear reason. I didn't maneuver at all so was something causing it or is it just dispersion? 

3. I think they need to do away with the Defensive Fire charges if carriers are getting unlimited planes. Let the cooldown serve as a limit the same way as it does for the CV planes. Otherwise the CV can burn through your defensive consumable over time and he effectively becomes stronger the longer he can stay alive. 

4. I don't think the switching AA zones really is meaningful. In practice you are usually only being attacked by 1 player's planes. It really is just an exercise in remembering to switch the stronger zone to the direction the planes are approaching. You can feint around to the other side a bit but that leaves you in the AA bubble for quite a while. We'll have to see how this works out live. 

5. They really need something to tell you where the heavy AA is coming from and a better way to tell where the defensive fighters are patrolling. (I believe they mentioned fixing this part).  

I was using Worcester and Cleveland a lot and wasn't having a particularly hard time fending planes off or minimizing their attacks. They did hit, but they never actually hit that hard. My caveat is I did not encounter T10 CVs in any of my games  while I was in an AA ship so I have no idea about Midway (or Hak) other than what I have seen in CC's videos. T8s were manageable with T8 AA ships. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[TSG4B]
Volunteer Moderator Coordinator
2,795 posts
14,711 battles
13 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

What would happen with the bad AA ships like a Tirpitz?

Tirpitz don't have bad AA when she is secondary spec out with 19 pts captain, please leave this historical ship alone, don't touch her! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×