Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Kingpin61

Is the CV Rework an improvement on the current RTS system?

103 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
909 posts
5,992 battles

It is in some ways but it’s definitely not perfect. It definitely solves many of the core issues I had with current system but it’s coming with some of its own problems that will need to be worked on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,147
Members
2,486 posts
4,169 battles

Eh,  apples and oranges.  Its definitely less stressful then the current system but its not as robust.  I think more people are going to find this system fun then the current RTS one.  I definitely see the people who prefer the RTS system leaving carriers behind,  though.  Its too drastic a departure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,386
[CMFRT]
Members
10,451 posts
22 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Eh,  apples and oranges.  Its definitely less stressful then the current system but its not as robust.

I just don't get it... the old carrier interface was the LEAST stressful part of WOWS.  It was what I did to take a break from surface ships.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
909 posts
5,992 battles
Just now, KilljoyCutter said:

I just don't get it... the old carrier interface was the LEAST stressful part of WOWS.  It was what I did to take a break from surface ships.

 

 

Sorry I can’t say that agree with this at all. In PVP any way its extremely stressful because one mistake can snowball into getting yourself and your team a very one sided loss. It is the thing that has really made me not want to play my Midway. If it was just me that got wrecked by a unicom CV player that would be fine but it can so negatively effect the other 11 people on my team that I don’t play my Midway very often. I’ll play Midway in co-op because compared to playing a CV in PVP it’s very easy and I don’t have to worry about leaving my team high and dry against a unicom cv player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,147
Members
2,486 posts
4,169 battles
25 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I just don't get it... the old carrier interface was the LEAST stressful part of WOWS.  It was what I did to take a break from surface ships.

 

 

Bull.  Flat out,  bull.  CV's had more expected of them then any other ship class and had/have to manage multiple things at the same time to get an even AVERAGE performance and they get credited for less than any other ship class, while ALSO having to deal with a direct counterpart who has every possibility of either just being in a better ship then you  or just flat out being better at micromanaging.  Also,  said nothing of the interface.  Knock it off with the strawman arguments.  While you PERSONALLY ((And frankly,  I rather doubt that,  you've been on and on about how much you hate this rework since before we had any details)) found it less stressful then whatever,  but I can promise you that most people did not.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
381 posts
18,337 battles

I know of more than just a few players that have stopped playing because of the poorly implemented +/- 2 match making and CVs.  I hope this CV rework doesn't kill the game, but I suspect it could cause a "mass exodus" of players if WG does not give players the option of not playing against CVs.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,386
[CMFRT]
Members
10,451 posts
5 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Bull.  Flat out,  bull.  CV's had more expected of them then any other ship class and had/have to manage multiple things at the same time to get an even AVERAGE performance and they get credited for less than any other ship class, while ALSO having to deal with a direct counterpart who has every possibility of either just being in a better ship then you  or just flat out being better at micromanaging.  Also,  said nothing of the interface.  Knock it off with the strawman arguments.  While you PERSONALLY ((And frankly,  I rather doubt that,  you've been on and on about how much you hate this rework since before we had any details)) found it less stressful then whatever,  but I can promise you that most people did not.

Ah, I say I liked the old interface, so I must be a liar.  Got it.

That's OK, I hated the rework before it was cool to hate the rework.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,488
[WOLF1]
Members
4,753 posts
2,228 battles
Just now, KilljoyCutter said:

Ah, I say I liked the old interface, so I must be a liar.  Got it.

That's OK, I hated the rework before it was cool to hate the rework.

That's OK.  You've pretty much already accused anyone who disagreed with you of being A) stupid or B) a liar or C) both.

What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

You need to remember that your opinions are not necessarily facts.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,386
[CMFRT]
Members
10,451 posts
33 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

That's OK.  You've pretty much already accused anyone who disagreed with you of being A) stupid or B) a liar or C) both.

What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

You need to remember that your opinions are not necessarily facts.

I accused people who don't agree with me of being liars?  Now, no accusation necessary, it's flat-out fact that WG is lying about what's behind this rework -- but I didn't accuse other players of being liars if they disagreed with me.

As for who is calling people stupid -- I'm not the one saying that the players are too stupid to handle both the ship and one squad of planes at the same time, that's WG saying that every time they try to justify the Roomba-CV in the rework.   And I'm not the one saying that the old RTS-light interface is "too hard" for most players, either -- that would be supporters of the rework.

The only thing I've said that's close to calling other people stupid is commenting that I can't believe WG thinks we're stupid enough to believe this is actually about balance or better gameplay. 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[QC]
Members
65 posts
7,593 battles

Yes it's an improvement from RTS style and better for the game in general. 

That said first 1-3 month can be pretty anarchist. CV line and premium aren't balanced. Imagine 8 different graph zeppelin available for everyone unbalanced for several month.

It will be an interesting experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
538 posts
19,884 battles
26 minutes ago, BattlecruiserOperational said:

all these polls for what? The rework is obviously going live, if you like it or not. I don't think it's all that fun(yet), but it certainly scales down the impact carriers have on the outcome of a match, and that's a good thing.

The idea is to get some hard data to see if wargaming's claims that the reception to the rework was 'overwhelmingly positive' hold any water.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
909 posts
5,992 battles
20 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

, it's flat-out fact that WG is lying about what's behind this rework -- 

Stoped reading here because no it’s not a fact. You have your opinion about why it’s happening but that does not make it a fact. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70
[NLIST]
Members
129 posts
9,228 battles

The midway's insane 36 rockets (per run) are devastating to cruisers.

The hak's torps will flood you out in 2-3 runs.

Even the bombers deal 6k-12k on average... higher than the current rts bombers.

The strike alpha damage are essentially gone but the way you can directly attack ships is like a slow painful death beating tf out of you until you pass out...on top of that, there aren't any real fighters to help you.

I know its PvE test but the damage output is real when I consistently average about ~200k per game.

Edited by Xantek
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,141
[TARK]
Members
4,224 posts
1,630 battles
1 hour ago, Forgottensoldier117 said:

Stoped reading here because no it’s not a fact. You have your opinion about why it’s happening but that does not make it a fact. 

At this point, believing WG press statements is a foolish thing to do.

There is pretty good circumstantial evidence for his assertion, and protests that it isn't true are not definitive.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
909 posts
5,992 battles
2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

At this point, believing WG press statements is a foolish thing to do.

There is pretty good circumstantial evidence for his assertion, and protests that it isn't true are not definitive.

Disagree completely with this. People do not like the change and I understand that but I don’t see any reason to believe his assertions are anything but his own extremely biased opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
538 posts
19,884 battles

image.png.c5856bcf5a0f49586209ac6f84f63cb0.png

considering these are the inital results......... i'd say believing the 'overwhelmingly positive' line is probably foolish

3 minutes ago, Forgottensoldier117 said:

Disagree completely with this. People do not like the change and I understand that but I don’t see any reason to believe his assertions are anything but his own extremely biased opinions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
13 minutes ago, Kingpin61 said:

image.png.c5856bcf5a0f49586209ac6f84f63cb0.png

considering these are the inital results......... i'd say believing the 'overwhelmingly positive' line is probably foolish

 

Considering not many people want to vote on polls in general on here, and you're hosting it on a 3rd party site that I don't want to give my email address to....

Yea...

90 WHOLE responses? LOL. Such a giant sample size to draw even an initial reaction from. What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
538 posts
19,884 battles
2 minutes ago, J30_Reinhardt said:

Considering not many people want to vote on polls in general on here, and you're hosting it on a 3rd party site that I don't want to give my email address to....

Yea...

90 WHOLE responses? LOL. Such a giant sample size to draw even an initial reaction from. What a joke.

>3rd party site

you realize google forms is run by google right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
49 minutes ago, Kingpin61 said:

>3rd party site

you realize google forms is run by google right?

Yup. Ever heard of google analytics? And depending on how that doc's set up I don't want anyone to have access to my email address that I don't want to give it to.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,476 posts
86 battles
3 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

it's flat-out fact that WG is lying about what's behind this rework

THAT IS YOUR OPINION.

Not a fact.

The instant you said this line is the time you lost all credibility in your opinions about the CV rework.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,185
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,888 posts
9,171 battles
1 hour ago, Kingpin61 said:

image.png.c5856bcf5a0f49586209ac6f84f63cb0.png

considering these are the inital results......... i'd say believing the 'overwhelmingly positive' line is probably foolish

 

can you not create a public link to the results? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×