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

World of Warships cv rework faq video

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,648
[_-_]
Members
3,146 posts
8,242 battles

I watched it.

You know those round, brown things on the ground in a cow pasture?

Yeah, pretty much.

  • Cool 7
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
17 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

I watched it.

You know those round, brown things on the ground in a cow pasture?

Yeah, pretty much.

Is he still telling his viewers that WOWS players are too stupid to manage 2 things at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[FOG]
Members
816 posts
7,706 battles

I listened with what I consider to be an open mind to this video. First, it is clear that WG wants to make CVs a more popular ship selection and I understand this from a business point of view. However, I think that their approach in aiding players selecting CVs is to make them dominantly overpowered. I believe that their plan from the beginning was to show invulnerable planes continuously and successfully bombing, torpedoing, and rocket attacking essentially helpless ships and to implant the idea as to how much fun this will be for new players. This was tried to be explained away as demonstrating simply a "game mechanic", but, in fact, was to show, especially non-CVs mains, that the way to success in this game was to play CVs. I heard that there is recognized unbalance between ship types and I think again that is entirely intentional. The plan is to allow these dominantly overpowered planes to wreak havoc for at least one and probably two game updates while "comprehensive data" is collected and evaluated, but in fact they well know that CVs will be devastating against most and perhaps all ships for months. In their mind this will cause players to flock to this ship type. After they get people "hooked" on this ship type they will only then very slowly incrementally nerf the CVs and/or buff the non-CV floating targets. In the meantime this game may not be much fun for any non-CV players.

Edited by DJC_499
  • Cool 8
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,699
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,754 posts
22,116 battles

I watched it, still not interested in the rework other than selling all my carriers back and being done with them.

What I am interested in is hearing from people who have played the rework in something that just occurred to me. I have Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan and had planned on selling them all back. Got to thinking I should probably keep one "just in case" I need one for missions or for farming rewards or maybe if I change my mind and decide to play them. Which one would be best with the rework? Am thinking Saipan but am prejudiced by her long stint as an OP carrier and would rather hear from someone who has played the rework to give me some solid information about ship performance. Course not even sure the premiums were allowed in testing so there may be no facts available to help.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,926
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,815 posts
11,212 battles
6 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Course not even sure the premiums were allowed in testing so there may be no facts available to help.

They weren't so were all just as blind beyond all premium CV's are tier 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
532
[-N-]
Members
2,156 posts
14,522 battles

I am tired of hearing I can't handle it.  I HOPE THIS IS WGs Biggest Failure and it is GOING TO BE!!!!

Edited by GrimmeReaper
  • Cool 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,501
[INTEL]
Members
12,293 posts
34,065 battles

I wanted to listen to the whole thing, but I had to kill it after half an hour. As I listened to this vid, my stomach sank. They are absolutely bent on destroying this game and nothing will stop them from this stupidity. WOWs has been a wonderful experience, but I don't expect the fun, immersive game I knew to survive the introduction of WOT-style artillery. So sad.

...and what a colossal waste of dev resources on this crap, when we need Coop overhauled (asking for three years), more maps, more ops, more ship lines, and the interface worked on.... so many places where these wasted resources could have been applied to make WG more money, to improve game play, and to bring in more players.

Have to talk to my son the Youtuber and Twitch streamer about what games I should think about switching to when the devs finally succeed in killing WOWs. 

 

 

  • Cool 5
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[FOG]
Members
816 posts
7,706 battles
19 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

I wanted to listen to the whole thing, but I had to kill it after half an hour. As I listened to this vid, my stomach sank. They are absolutely bent on destroying this game and nothing will stop them from this stupidity. WOWs has been a wonderful experience, but I don't expect the fun, immersive game I knew to survive the introduction of WOT-style artillery. So sad.

...and what a colossal waste of dev resources on this crap, when we need Coop overhauled (asking for three years), more maps, more ops, more ship lines, and the interface worked on.... so many places where these wasted resources could have been applied to make WG more money, to improve game play, and to bring in more players.

Have to talk to my son the Youtuber and Twitch streamer about what games I should think about switching to when the devs finally succeed in killing WOWs. 

 

 

Sadly I concur....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
532
[-N-]
Members
2,156 posts
14,522 battles

More fun to watch the Farazelleth's version of this, it is like Mystery Science 3000 version.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[WOLF4]
Members
147 posts

Truth hurts. Bottom line is the solved the CV RTS trash. I can't wait till this goes live and finally be able to enjoy CV game play.

  • Cool 5
  • Meh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,926
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,815 posts
11,212 battles

Typing this as I watch -

"Rework is almost done/want to release in 8.0" And you people are either arrogant and/or fools to do so. The tanks guys were more open about their Artillery rework, and had a long term open sandbox to fix it. You guys tested this with non company and super testers for about 10 days. 

"We had a lot of comments, feedback, etc" - and ignored most of it, including some of the key ones, like CV's being sitting :etc_swear:ing ducks to all other ship types.

"No were not doing this for consoles" - tenor.gif?itemid=8872690

Say about not messing up gameplay, all that, what a joke given you are, and it does when it's a class you deem "underutilized" and allows you to test it on a larger scale openly under the guise of fixing issues. Please I didn't want to believe that but everything you've done and said says otherwise, and I may have born on a day but not yesterday. 

"Can't base on Beta tests, they behave differently" - No, we actually don't behave near as different as you think we do pal. The CV sniping, the gunning for the CV, our target selection - that is exactly how we play normally. Things like accuracy, damage, flooding, all that stuff - that i not exactly in our bloody control, we aim for max freaking damage. That and most people were playing for a first look - so yeah, they were playing as they were, us actual testers did the same, but with goals in mind. Your shoving this out, half done, to meet a deadline and your excuses are at best, poor.

"unstable metagame for 1-2 updates" - I can't think of an appropriate level of laughter at this one. It took the Warplanes team 3-4 to sort their equivalent to this out and guess what - IT ALL BUT KILLED THE GAME IN ONE. The game you have is stable, just needs proper finite tweaks. This is like getting a house that's a tad shaky from age, tossing 50 pounds of C4 into it, setting it off and then just trying to rebuild it with toothpicks and playing cards.

"Players did not notice we did not remove direct controls" - No you bloody muppet the entire problem is that unlike every other ship in game WE CAN'T CONTROL THE SHIP AND ATTACK. You don't think we need to, I don't know DODGE. Because carriers are spotted from the damn moon, and ships and planes show the hell up and what, we have to let them hit us, or dodge with no self defense because your making us :etc_swear:ing pilots instead of captains IN A GAME ABOUT CAPTAINING SHIPS. Other ships control their hull and turrets separately, so sod off we can't.

"makes it easier to balance, more accessible, more visually appealing" - bull you can balance RTS just as easy, you clowns put in something that actually was a tutorial on CV gameplay you could have made it more accessible as well as fixing balance and broken mechanics, and there were ways to make RTS more visually appealing to by changing the way the camera was. 

"Immersion" - you mean having us not as a CV commander but a pilot doesn't break it? the inability to launch and coordinate multiple strike groups? That the top down view is simalar to the boards and tables you'd see in command posts and CV's that showed the planes course and positions based on time all that you see in films like Midway, Patton, etc?

"We think this choice (controlling CV vs planes to dodge torps) is a reward" - get the frak out of here with that nonsense.

"Things we may have not seen, scenario's we can't see, where ability to control CV is needed" - ARE YOU PEOPLE BLIND. Between the actual damn play, and every freaking scenario we have experienced AND SPELLED OUT FOR YOU, like destroyers running us down and needing to dodge and are the only ones that can defend ourselves due to teammates locations, firing ranges, or being the last damn ship left but under this new garbage can't do that. Are you people :etc_swear:ing real?

Consumables - Because some of us waited to use the DCP for a particular moment to get the best use of it and timing, as well as DF AA to make sure the enemy attack failed. And this crap DOES NOT make up for the act we can't control are damn ships.

"attack runs" speed and maneuvering is a red hearing for the fact it's all still RNG. Change speed and direction, still lose half the freaking planes to random flak burst. And all it is is go in, click, maybe hit a WASD key, click again, and go back. It's the same basic crap as the other ships except done so much worse.

"IJN mandatory AP bombs" - First off you clowns, this is not how you give them a flavour. Secondly - the ONLY time the IJN carrier planes used AP bombs was the attack on Pearl Harbor due to the size and weight, and could only be used in level bombing and so, best against those stationary targets. The Imperial Japanese Navy instead used mostly a mixed strike force of HE  bombs and SEMI-armour piercing bombs, in conjunction with torpedoes, the torpedoes being the main capital ship killers. IJN should be TB based, USN DB and Rocket based or even just rocket based. Seeing as of the two nations they used them more, though in reality of the 4 nations I know planes, ships, tactics and all for UK should be the most based around TB's, IJN should fall somewhere under that but trading some of that TB focus for DB's as well, USN should focus more on it's lethal HVAR 5 inch rockets and DB's while Germany focuses heavily on it's DB's. But I mean, what do I know, I only have 20+ years of study of American, Japanese, UK and German aircraft, their tactics, the pacific war mostly on the carrier end and all that. 

"IJN torpedo bombers can stealth torp sometimes' - I'm a CV player, I want CV's to be balanced, but good - and there is no way in hell we should be able to stealth torp anything, plain and freaking simple.

-note at his point I'm skipping around so I may miss things to avoid my head exploding-

"skill vs skill now" no, no it's not. It's skill vs automated defense and some skill, just like current CV's is tactical planning and skill vs automated defense and some skill. 

"more skill, may not be popular, but has place" - and right there you have invalidated your entire spin on this rework because CV's may not be popular, but have their place with what and how they do.

"Were not taking away the current complexity" - yes, yes you are, despite all your attempts to spin it otherwise.

(out of order) "carrier roles" - because I've seen the thing that talks about those ideas the role of the aircraft carrier is to defend the fleet from enemy air attack, attack enemy targets, and of course, recon, in reality and in game. It IS NOT to put out fires on friendly ships, drop smoke screens, and all the other stupid mario kart bull you want to add. You can shove that stuff right the hell now. Especially on CV's that were literally designated at one point  ATTACK CARRIERS.

"Flavour/distincve features" - not that different, not that distinct, still just as well giving me painted cardboard boxes and paper planes. \

"Year of the carrier jokes" - You got to be yanking my chain. Part of you rushing this nonsense and shoving it down our throats is that? Let me explain the jokes cause you obviously don't freaking get them - You had people openly say "it would be the year of the carrier" 2 years in a row. And both years - YOU NERFED THEM TO HELL OR BROKE THEM WORSE. That is why the damn joke exists and is no freaking excuse to rush development on this garbage and shove it down our throats.

"Numbers"- yeah, okay, tell us how many under 10 battles then didn't like it huh? All this crap, and you managed 32% of all players, regardless of number of battles. In your THIRD TEST. That means that 68% have issues with it as tested if they don't outright hate it. And many of those issues are the inability to control the ship and planes, are the repetitive damage farm nature of the gameplay, and others. You'd have done better telling us no numbers and hiding the fact that even the best number you can manage is 38% if you mess around with what numbers you count by manipulating the ones you count. How about some simple math fellas, lets use your 38% number, and the just throw it out 50% "well, maybe with some changes I might like it" your basically throwing away at minimum 12% of the population of the game then. With another 50% on the fence and dependent on what changes you guys make, meaning, your looking at potentially throwing away as much as 62% of your population. Are you really this ready and willing to take a gamble that if you lose can cost you 2/3 of the games population? Ask your pals on the Warplanes dev team how that went for them in the weeks after 1.5.

Great to know that anyone doesn't like it doesn't matter, just gonna toss out anything we say that might make us a little more amenable for things, it's this garbage why I pulled my spending and I hope you get your just desserts with 40$ of the player base pulling it with me.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,547
[PVE]
Members
19,833 posts
11,995 battles

I have not watched the video yet, but I would expect that it and the FB FAQ largely cover the same things.

 

 
Commanders!
Today we have some interesting news for you and this series of posts will be very different from most of the news that we usually publish on this page. In the coming posts, we'll tell you about the new aircraft carriers, which you will see the in version 0.8.0. You will be able to read more details in a special series of articles on the official portal.
First of all, thanks to all the players that took part in the testing process of aircraft carriers. Your feedback, opinions and bug reports have allowed us to find and fix a lot of bugs and improve some mechanics.
 
New CV will be unbalanced.
The problem when you test something in a closed and separate environment, is that you cannot make a large amount of players truly emulate their production server behavior. While beta test is a great place to generate a major improvements list, adjust the priorities and see how the concept works in general, we cannot adjust all aspects: cool-downs, timers and DPS etc for each ship, especially when we talk about fine tuning individual ships versus each other. We will have to spend some time, we estimate approximately 1-2 months, after CV rework release. It's inevitable, but necessary. We're eager to have your feedback and impressions when 0.8.0 is released. We'd like to apologose in advance for any inconvenience that you may experience during this period.
 
Lack of direct CV ship control simultaneously when piloting planes.
We've met a popular request to directly control a CV despite autopilot improvements. There are different opinions on that, ranging from "it's crucial for gameplay" to "the lack of it is just dumb". Let's try to break it down:
 
Why do we think it's not really needed for the gameplay?
First of all, as players rightfully noticed, the role of CVs in battle is much smaller. The main "unit" under player control is a squadron. This is exactly what we wanted to achieve, as concentrating on the squadron allows us to create more action-packed and more visually epic experience. CV direct control is not needed for the majority of the battle - autopilot can take care of CV positioning. Most typical tasks, from plotting a course to the farthest corner of a map to parking a CV behind an island, can be done via tactical map, and done faster than with direct controls. Most players do exactly this with the current CV on live server, and there is really only one case left uncovered - precise dodging of torpedoes. And that leads us to...
 
What about torpedo dodging?
A DD that manages to get to the enemy CV should be rewarded - if a DD player succeeds in pulling this off, he either dedicated a lot of effort to it or a CV was positioned exceptionally poorly. The CV does have a choice to aggressively defend with its squadrons or to abandon plane control and directly control a CV for evasion. We strongly believe that adding opportunities for a CV to maneuver in CQC and still control the planes (and thus, making it harder to destroy in such an engagement) is not good for balance. Just imagine the case - a cruiser caught broadside will most likely be punished by a battleship. A careless battleship could be punished by an ambushing destroyer in the same manner. And a destroyer will surely have a hard time surviving a cruiser encounter at close range. The bottom line is: if a CV is engaged at close range, and without support, there should be a tough choice of either WASD-ing the ship or attacking the attacker.
 
What about immersion?
We do understand that the ability to directly control the CV is immersive and helps the player to feel more like a CV commander, as opposed to the squadron commander. The rework is indeed about commanding a squadron. Concentrating on it allows us to make the gameplay more dynamic, more entertaining, and more balanced. With that and what was said above in mind, adding this control just 'for the feels' is not justifiable. We also will be looking into more ways to customize the squadrons both visually and gameplay-wise, so that the reduced focus on the ship is compensated.
 
You think players can't manage two things at the same time?
Of course we don't think players are incapable of managing more than two things at one time. Our game is far from easy and that's one of its key aspects. There is a lot of multitasking and awareness involved when we're talking about good players on any class. And we do want CVs to have the same depth, but to have it centred mostly in the squadron - in the place which is the core of the new CV gameplay experience. What we really question here is the value from simultaneous direct control of two separated entities - a CV ship and a squadron - both in terms of game design and attention focus.
 
Сan it change some day?
Nothing is set in stone, and the possibility exists. We are not going to close this question now and forever. The point is that the top priority in the CV rework is focussing and improving on something that players will spend most of their time doing - controlling the squadrons and engaging in combat with them. We need to allow some time for tweaking the balance after the rework goes live and for players to familiarize themselves and get stuck into the new gameplay tactics of carriers.
Automated consumables concept. As recently announced, we're going to implement automatic activation of DCP and Fighter squadron on CV ships. We're well aware that some of you find it controversial at best. There are several reasons that has led us to this decision:
We observed that players understandably tend to concentrate on their squadrons, and despite all interface prompts and indicators (icons, timer, sound) for, say, fire alarm, many found it very difficult to notice and act upon. Again, it's not like we want to cater to everybody and avoid any punishment for mistakes or lack of awareness. But, please remember that the scope of rework is a shift from RTS to action, and all other classes manage the situation around one unit - the ship.
А player in a BB, DD or a cruiser manages the consumables directly and it totally makes sense, because there are meaningful choices, and the ship is the only unit under control. While playing reworked CVs, it's pretty simple - it makes no sense to wait for a second fire, it makes no sense not to deploy a Fighter squadron when in danger, and what's more, the overwhelming majority of gameplay is managing squadrons. BB can use damage control between its salvos, DDs - smoke, cruisers - their support tools, but from CV point of view, we believe, there is almost zero difference between "X happens, I push a button and then don't care" and "X happens, the button is pushed automatically, I don't care".
With the right balance settings for fire, flooding and fighter squadron the focus will be fully on the player's controlled planes (and the Squadrons consumables, which are managed manually of course).
To sum up, while these mechanics sound unusual, we believe it can help us to shift the attention of a player on this reworked class to the place where the real gameplay is - and this leads us to a very fundamental concern we will address in our next post.
 
Lack of gameplay depth and skill development.
To start the discussion on that, we would like you to think: how many battles do you need to play in the BB class to understand shooting mechanics, angling and tanking, damage control, shell choice, torpedo evasion and overall planning? A new BB player will probably start from almost mechanical skill of target prediction. Only after that he will go to deep strategy and understanding of meta. First 10-20 battles on a class is just the beginning. Such concept should work with new carriers, too. We wanted to make CV more accessible in some aspects, but by no means "simple" or "elementary". We have several features of the CV rework that should, by initial design, be discovered and mastered by those who are motivated and want to play them well. The CV rework is massive, and we cannot be 100% sure that every feature will be used as we predicted. Of course when the rework is released, players will find some ways to play the game that we never thought about. And we will have to address that and adjust our design concept. But for now, here's the preliminary list of things that should keep players engaged, while keeping the skill important:
  1. Avoiding long-range AA damage. Long range AA currently takes squadron direction and speed into account every few seconds, while constantly shooting at it. This results in AA explosions "bubbles" in path of a carrier squadron. It's definitely not recommended to fly into these bubbles, as they deal massive damage. Avoiding them is one of the first skills a player can develop, to prevent excessive plane losses, and for that, both steering and throttle controls should be used. Throttle controls also affect turning radius.
  2. Performing attack runs. This is the core gameplay for carrier, and each squadron type has some differences here. However, there are common factors that should be taken into account:
    1. High speed results in less time for target movement prediction, but the squadron spends less time under fire;
    2. There is choice of target, choice of squadron, and even choice of which ship part to target. The last matters, because rockets and bombs interact with armor (and AP bombs have proper ballistics), and torpedoes interact with torpedo protection;
    3. And of course, the general concept is that planning the attack run in advance results in the best spread;
  3. AP bombs. This mechanics was significantly reworked and it's much more complex and interesting now. They used to work similar to AP shells dropped from above at a 90 degree angle, and they basically ignored effective armor. Now they have advanced ballistics and their flight path and angle of impact depends on when you actually release them. They can even bounce against armor! When dive bombers start the run, you can release the payload earlier, at higher altitude with more chances of a deck hit. Or you can wait and release them very late when the planes basically stop the dive - and it will be more like a salvo to the broadside. That's like a separate AP shooting mechanic to learn and master!
  4. Managing the squadrons. That's more strategic - losing planes slows down the preparation of the respective squadron times. Each squadron type has independent consumable timers, so smart rotation of plane types will also benefit a player.
  5. Ship positioning. Irrelevant of direct CV control, positioning is still crucial. Being closer to the heat of the battle is more dangerous, but brings with it the advantage of shorter approach and flight times;
  6. Some special tricks. While this part will most likely develop along with meta, we can give you two examples of more advanced tactics which were a thing during the beta:
    1. IJN long shots: having long range and parallel course of torpedos, IJN torpedo bombers can try to perform devastating torpedo volleys from maximum range, taking the least damage (and possibly even staying concealed), but of course such drops will require a lot of good target prediction;
    2. Multiple quick torpedo drops: squadron/wing mechanics allow torpedo bombers launch several volleys in very quick succession. As a result, CV may attempt to provoke an evasive maneuver with the first "bait" drop only to launch the second, better prepared attack. Alternatively, such bait attacks can help a player to expose enemy ship broadside to the allies artillery;
  7. Defensive AA and AA sectors. Defensive AA increases AA damage, while AA sector increased the long-range "bubble" density. We're working on a clear presentation in-game of both AA effects so that a CV player sees what he is dealing with and we hope to see some smart counterplay cases as a result;
  8. Line-of-sight gameplay. With reworked CVs we can finally switch the squadron vision and detection to line of sight. There are quite a few maps with remarkable terrain and LoS works with smoke screens as well, so now there is the opportunity for planes to use terrain as cover either to avoid AA or even to close in undetected and launch a surprise attack. Torpedo bombers are the most interesting in this aspect because they have long attack runs and when they do it, they dive really low, making most of terrain a good cover.
  9. Fighter squadrons. Fighter squadrons are consumables now, and the element of direct fighter control is gone. It is a great tool for team support, and a good player should probably always seek an opportunity to dispatch fighters where needed. Let's not forget that each CV squadron can dispatch fighters independently, so a player may maintain 2 or even 3 active for some time. Fighters also interact with other fighters, adding some CV counter-play element. With the latest updates we're going to show the "danger" zone on minimap to make fighter interaction more clear.
  10. New carriers with new roles. There are possibilities and considerations for the future alternative or completely new CV lines that could see unusual additions to their gameplay. It's too early to confirm anything now, but we do think that slightly more complicated and less "direct" CV gameplay may be introduced with these ships in the future, to keep the game fresh and to bring more variety.
So to sum up, We want gameplay to be more accessible and more action packed compared to the current CVs, we indeed took away some RTS-level depth, but we tried to add a lot of places for tactical depth, skill development and smart play in the design. We fully realize that not all of them may work, and some new layers may be discovered, but we really ask you - the players - to consider trying it out and discovering some tricks that you might have missed on Beta.
Lack of player feedback influence. We're very well aware that some of you feel that we're pushing the rework despite the concerns, issues and reservations from the playerbase, and that your feedback is widely disregarded.This is definitely not the case, so please allow us to explain;
  1. The CV rework was done because it requested by the players. Our responsibility was to answer the question "how";
  2. The gameplay you see is not only the result of our work, it is a result of beta test. While not everything that was requested has been achieved/implemented, A number of UI improvements and fixes, as well as changes to gameplay were made based on your feedback:
    1. all initial balance changes
    2. camera settings for all types of plane
    3. plane reserves UI
    4. attack timer addition
    5. changes to the inertia of the plane
    6. improved terrain avoidance system for planes;
  3. We are proceeding with the rework, despite being controversial in some aspects, because as shown below, it gathered good results from beta testing. For example, after the latest test we have the following data:
    1. On average, worldwide: 32,1% liked the rework (for testers with 10+ battles it's naturally higher, 38,3% on average);
    2. 50,8% liked some aspects and disliked other aspects;
    3. Only 13,2% disliked it (and 4,0% had no opinion);
    4. We also cannot confirm that CV rework is enjoyed only by those who are inexperienced: the results from the testers with 1500, 3000, 6000 and 6000+ battles on live server are not that different, and the same is true for those who play carriers on live versus those who don't. However, there is no denying that those who have the most CV battles on live tend to enjoy the rework the least, up to 25% of feedback being fully negative. This is understandable and was covered in CV rework Waterline episode.
    5. These results do show some negativity and challenges to overcome. CV rework is a massive undertaking, and unfortunately, we cannot hope to hit full satisfaction from everyone at launch;
We know that we will need to work more on CVs, to tune their balance and to see what issues are a priority, but we firmly believe that the beta period did it's job, and CV path should continue on to the live server, so the whole playerbase experience, passion, skill and feedback contribute to it.
Console influence.
 
We also noticed some talks about CV rework being a result of WoWS Legends development and overall "dumbing down the game for the consoles". Please let's be very clear. World of Warships PC is a successful and accomplished game, and this game, along with the players, is the most precious and valuable thing for many of us personally as well as for Wargaming Saint-Petersburg. CV rework gameplay could very well fit in to WoWS Legends, and if it works well, we will be happy to share it with our console colleagues for them to assess it's suitability in what is a separate title and project.
 
But there is zero chance we are risking our main game, our years of work and our loyal audience because of a new title that is being developed. It just does not make sense, CV are not a hard requirement to launch in Legends, and they have their own development timeline.
 
So
We implement the CV rework to fix the balance, to make the class more popular in the game, and because you told us it was needed. We will do our best to deliver fresh, enjoyable, engaging gameplay, but we understand that the work is not over with the first release. It will be quite a journey for us along with you. At this moment beta test did its job and to move forward we need to see how you guys play it on live server. We will listen, adjust the priorities for further development, and while it's a challenge, we think its worth it, because ultimately we're responsible for keeping the game fresh and interesting for as many of you as we can. Thank you for your time, attention, feedback, patience and assistance. Good luck and fair seas!
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,302 posts
6,653 battles

WG could eliminate a lot of complaints by just adding in a OPTION on MM - NO CV's in Battle.   That way player who opt out of CV's in game will not complain HOW CV's work no matter what.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
Beta Testers
1,988 posts

Watched the video.... too long to deliver so little information. This could've been summed up in a 15 minute video not an hour long cringefest. 

Anyways...

 

Overall, what I see here is devs that are completely detached from the reality of the game itself. Ergo, they don't play the game or understand what the issues with CV truly are. 

All they did here is replace the mass point blank torp attacks delivering fatal alpha strike damage.... with a single squadron that will deliver damage-over-time death to ships in less time than the current dungfest CV play does (do one torp run, get a flood, wait for ship to use repair, torp it again to flood it again now that its repair is used up... and then set it on fire with a bomb if possible and leave it to die. AKA the planes dont have to return to carrier to get more torps AND there are no fighters to worry about so you can loiter over empty water waiting for those repair timers to burn off).

Potato is Potato does SIR!

Then there's the nonsense that you can't control the CV if you're controlling your planes and viceversa. Absolute bullturd. You can already use the MAP VIEW when controlling your fighters.... what is so hard then about allowing the player to control the CV's via waypoints?

 

The fighters not being manually controlled: Another monumental stupidity. By removing fighters from player control you remove the biggest gameplay element the CV has: The ability to fight off the opposing carrier. Again, what is so hard about allowing manual use of fighters? If you already have complexity like the dive bomber bomb having angle of impact and such... what is so hard about making one squadron element option be a FIGHTER and have the CV Player have attack run (strafe) control of his planes and has to circle and intercept the enemy squadron. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,302 posts
6,653 battles

If I had my druthers I would make CV's more like ships in their functions.   CV's would have long range attack plane squads (just like a ships guns) and short range squads (much like ship secondaries).  

Long Range squad parameters:  Your squad consisting of your attack squad: one bomber, one torpedo plane and fighter fly together piloted by you. You can choose any of them and if one dies your shuttled to the next one etc. Your mission is limited in flight time in the air and when your timer reaches 50% you auto go back to the CV. That way you cannot go from one side of the map like some guided missile. Also if your detected by the enemy THEY can tell how far your attack radius is and AVOID you if they pay attention. Fair enough?   No unlimited planes.  Unlimited ammo sure.  When your attack is done or you get auto recall. You can fly back manually or have the Bot fly them back...but then again the bot will go direct line to CV..while you could avoid AA threats and fly slower (to save gas) and get your planes back intact.  Yes theres a price to pay to save your plane count.  

Secondary Plane parameters:  These planes are short range and short in time in the air.  They are to protect the CV in defense and also can attack enemy ships approaching.  They are unlimited in number but their hangars can be damaged which slows down their repair and launch intervals. They can have smoke to conceal the CV as well as smoke the enemy to limit their sight of you.  You can pilot them as a squad just like the long range planes but time in the sky and range is limited.

THAT is what I think would be a reasonable balance which I think the other surface ships would consider 'Balanced' so that they can have a fair battle if CV's are in play. Let me add that it would be nice if ALL SHIPS had another KEY which would give you total 360 degree firing of AA guns (if so equipped) to shoot planes. Just like a Key for Guns and one for Torps...make another KEY for AA Manual control as your option. That way when the planes buzz you..YOU can shoot and maybe take a few down if your good LOL!   

Edited by dionkraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,648
[_-_]
Members
3,146 posts
8,242 battles
3 hours ago, Taichunger said:

I wanted to listen to the whole thing, but I had to kill it after half an hour. As I listened to this vid, my stomach sank. They are absolutely bent on destroying this game and nothing will stop them from this stupidity. WOWs has been a wonderful experience, but I don't expect the fun, immersive game I knew to survive the introduction of WOT-style artillery. So sad.

I fear you are correct. Nothing but a sharp and immediate drop in revenue and player participation will send the necessary message, which will probably happen, but who wants to play in a ghost town? By then it will be too late.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16 posts
1 hour ago, dionkraft said:

WG could eliminate a lot of complaints by just adding in a OPTION on MM - NO CV's in Battle.   That way player who opt out of CV's in game will not complain HOW CV's work no matter what.

Except that WG actively WANTS to coerce people into a Sky Cancer Stockholm Syndrome.

"You will learn to love the CV, just like influenza and smallpox, comrades!"

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[KSC]
Supertester
2,215 posts
13,107 battles
3 hours ago, Taichunger said:

I wanted to listen to the whole thing, but I had to kill it after half an hour. As I listened to this vid, my stomach sank. They are absolutely bent on destroying this game and nothing will stop them from this stupidity. WOWs has been a wonderful experience, but I don't expect the fun, immersive game I knew to survive the introduction of WOT-style artillery. So sad.

...and what a colossal waste of dev resources on this crap, when we need Coop overhauled (asking for three years), more maps, more ops, more ship lines, and the interface worked on.... so many places where these wasted resources could have been applied to make WG more money, to improve game play, and to bring in more players.

Have to talk to my son the Youtuber and Twitch streamer about what games I should think about switching to when the devs finally succeed in killing WOWs. 

 

 

Hyperbole1.jpg.8ef8378d1cbeec2f871e57722ecf47a8.jpg

 

Seriously the "its going to kill the game" cries are massively over-reacting.   The only thing it is going to kill is the existence of CVs themselves.   They wanted to increase CV populations, but this change is going to kill them (after the natural bump post update, as everyone tries them out).   Why?   Because this game type while very pretty gets boring very fast.   Watch the streams and videos from PTS of those playing 10+ battles in a row.   They all speak as to how mind numbingly repetitive this is with a single squadron.   The old RTS system had a lot of problem, but boring was never one of them.   Sure it was difficult, and possibly too different in style, but it wasn't boring.   Boring is the one thing you NEVER want your game to be, and the new CVs are exactly that.   Difficult to get a large enough population to play something that is dull and it is difficult to ruin the game with a broken game mode that no one plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,648
[_-_]
Members
3,146 posts
8,242 battles
1 minute ago, SyndicatedINC said:

The only thing it is going to kill is the existence of CVs themselves.

We should be so lucky.  I hope you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
3 hours ago, GrimmeReaper said:

More fun to watch the Farazelleth's version of this, it is like Mystery Science 3000 version.

Was it as fun to watch as him not understanding why his planes dispersion wouldn't narrow?

The interesting part of this video was what I have to assume is a russian battleship sitting on the table. They're no longer paper ships, they're cardboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[KSC]
Supertester
2,215 posts
13,107 battles
31 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

We should be so lucky.  I hope you're right.

Did you play the PTS?   Essentially everyone who tried a dozen games or more said the same thing.  They got tired of it.   Just one of the CC vids I recall off the top of my head:

 

 

Pretty much every streamer I watched playing the public tests said the same thing at some point in their stream.  This is repetitive with not enough to do.  Simply making more depth to the AP bombs or trop drops isn't changing that.  The single squad only and no simultaneous CV+Plane control has made the class gameplay exceedingly dull after a quick time.   Fun in small doses, but that is all.    This is not a formula that generates a flood of interest in the class, and fills out MM populations.   

 

Thus I think all of the "the sky is falling" posts are premature.   If a broken class is rarely played, it is almost the same as it not existing.

Edited by SyndicatedINC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[HOT]
[HOT]
Members
564 posts
15,844 battles
4 hours ago, LoveBote said:

Is he still telling his viewers that WOWS players are too stupid to manage 2 things at the same time?

Nope, he is saying most people can't multitask and he is right. When your so focused on making your drops people inevitably stop paying attention to their actual ship. Then that dd comes around the corner and torps you. Whoops.

Some people can handle it, others cannot. The game has to be made for the benefit of all not the few. Remember the vast majority of players are old. Average age is mid 40's +. Those people never played pc games as a kid. They don't know what an RTS is.

 

 Dont like it, dont play. Simple as that. Being a hater just makes you look dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[HOT]
[HOT]
Members
564 posts
15,844 battles
4 hours ago, GrimmeReaper said:

I am tired of hearing I can't handle it.  I HOPE THIS IS WGs Biggest Failure and it is GOING TO BE!!!!

Hate to break it to you but not only will the cv rework not kill the game, it will be a massive success. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[SBS]
Members
5,194 posts
2,421 battles
4 hours ago, Skyfaller said:

All they did here is replace the mass point blank torp attacks delivering fatal alpha strike damage.... with a single squadron that will deliver damage-over-time death to ships in less time than the current dungfest CV play does (do one torp run, get a flood, wait for ship to use repair, torp it again to flood it again now that its repair is used up... and then set it on fire with a bomb if possible and leave it to die.

If you had played in the tests you'd know the fire and flooding chance of CVs attacks were greatly reduced.  Its actually not easy to stack DoT. 

4 hours ago, Skyfaller said:

You can already use the MAP VIEW when controlling your fighters.... what is so hard then about allowing the player to control the CV's via waypoints?

You can control the CV via waypoints, and still have you planes in the air.  You can't use your CV's consumables or manually the carrier without recalling your planes.

3 hours ago, SyndicatedINC said:

They wanted to increase CV populations, but this change is going to kill them (after the natural bump post update, as everyone tries them out).   Why?   Because this game type while very pretty gets boring very fast.

That's a valid concern.  The only thing we don't know at this point is how much more complex/dynamic the game play will be when its all against live players that actually want to win.  The tests have been against bots, and the players weren't really trying to figure out the best tactics to win in CVs or what you'll have to do to play against them to win the game.  Once people start to figure out some tactics the gameplay will gain a lot more depth.  Who knows if it will be a compelling enough play style to attract and keep enough players to work.  Or it could end up just like Taich says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×