Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
kgh52

Another CV rework post/question but no rant

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,011
[TDRB]
Members
3,092 posts
9,355 battles

Judging from what I see in this forum there is very little positive to be said about the rework. I have not tried the CV rework so I can't give an opinion but I do have questions. My experience with CV's is limited in the 1st place so I would be a poor choice to make a comparison.

1) WG seems to think they are going down the right path. We seem to fear "change". Is it Metathesiophobia that is creating all the negativity or is the rework as bad as some claim?

2) WG appears to expect some will be angry by announcing refunds on CV's if you are dissatisfied with the CV rework. Is WG ready to "pull the plug" if the reaction to the rework is highly negative once it goes live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-KAK-]
Members
374 posts
7,950 battles

1) I'd say it's a combination. Personally, I'm disappointed that RTS is going, although having played CVs (Not exceptionally well, but average), I can see the issues with it. One of the big problems is that it's not just a CV rework - It's also an AA rework. Balance shifts from trying to get a class to work better, to reworking an entire aspect of the game, one which several CA/CL/BB lines have significant ties to.

2) I highly doubt WG will throw this all away at the 11th hour because the players are pissed. It'll go through, and they'll try to improve it. Whether they manage to make it truelly workable or not remains to be seen. Personally, I expect to see an explosion of carriers at 8.0, 8.1/8.2 will have some more AA fixes, and then the interest in CVs will die down again in the spring, and we'll be back where we are now in terms of population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[TDG]
Members
1,668 posts
8,856 battles

It's the AA rework that is most upsetting.  I have many Commanders with AFT/BFT for the AA buff.  This has been pretty much neutered.

I am looking forward to the new gameplay, but I may just need to take a break after selling all my CVs to let things settle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,092
[ARGSY]
Members
13,592 posts
8,775 battles

Having played RTS and rework for a relatively brief period, I have issues with both. The infinite planes could be an issue, and cooldown timers for regeneration of lost aircraft might have to be tweaked. The main issue non-CV players (particularly destroyer mains) complain about is the ability of RTS CV's to spot in one area of the map while attacking in another, relatively distant area and providing vision there as well as a consequence. That will now be ended. This will be good for destroyer captains, and it may also be good for the CV, as with only one squadron they can't be asked or expected to provide spotting on demand somewhere else.

Another issue is cross-torping. While I've seen Farazelleth pull off multiple individual torp drops with high-tier long-range aircraft, a simultaneous close drop from two axes by the same carrier is now no longer possible. In addition, the removal of torpedoes from T4 carriers and all carriers from Tier 5 combined with the way matchmaking works means that Tiers 3 and 4 ships will never see aircraft torpedoes again, and Tier 5 ships won't see them when they are top tier. So everything in that MM bracket now hangs on the fire chance that bombs and rockets provide.

23 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Is WG ready to "pull the plug" if the reaction to the rework is highly negative once it goes live?

Doubtful, IMO. If the console version takes off like hotcakes and singlehandedly justifies the effort they put in, maybe. But still doubtful. They have already recognised that there is an issue with medium and long range AA not being strong enough, and are working to rectify that before the next update patch drops. I think they're genuinely invested in making it work.

@YeOldeTraveller see above; this is being addressed. I have to admit that I mostly take BFT and AFT for the benefits it has for surface gunfire. Chill, hang on to your ships, and wait until we see what actually goes down in the full-scale live environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[ASRN]
Beta Testers
452 posts
4,336 battles

Personally, I've already tuned out the usual pro/anti-CV noisemakers on the forums.  Just waiting now for live release with Langley, Independence, Ryuujo, Kaga, Shoukaku, Texas, and Worcester all ready to go.  Whatever happens, happens.  /shrug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,633
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
6,324 posts

There has been both good and bad said about both new and old systems... . . Problem being that the old system has a long learning curve. And dealing with OP CV operators is also a long learning process. They have recently nerfed US CVs by making a single load-out, and dropping the plane tiers. They never touched the IJN planes (a little biased??).. .. .. And so now change is looming on the not-so-distant horizon and folks are getting dramatic... .. There will be pain.. there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... Let's see what's on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[OKM]
Members
472 posts
3,307 battles
16 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

Problem being that the old system has a long learning curve.

I would say it is more a question of ''match making''. In the actual game, CV are basically playing against each others  and the one who wins will help his team. In the current system, you can have an unicum player on one side against someone with a 3 skill captain in their CV, and god knows how it will go.

 

In an ideal worlds, CV would have a system of MM to make them fight opponent of their caliber, but with the current population it is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,223
[SBS]
Members
4,596 posts
2,408 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

1) WG seems to think they are going down the right path. We seem to fear "change". Is it Metathesiophobia that is creating all the negativity or is the rework as bad as some claim?

Its not as simple as its goo or bad.  There are several perspectives to consider and each person will view each differently.  As I see it there are three elements to the rework.  1) Are the reworked CVs fun to play?  2) Are the reworked CVs fun to play against?  3) What does the rework do to the overall balance/fun factor of the game? 

Many people will only view the rework from one of these perspectives.  Their view may be short sighted but its still their view.  For some people they will say people are saying the sky is falling for no reason, for others the sky is actually falling.

1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

2) WG appears to expect some will be angry by announcing refunds on CV's if you are dissatisfied with the CV rework. Is WG ready to "pull the plug" if the reaction to the rework is highly negative once it goes live?

I don't see WG pulling the plug.  It took them a while to decide to RTS system wasn't going to work and even longer to actually get something to replace it with.  My guess, if the rework fails WG will limp it along until it become too problematic to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,727
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
9,398 posts

I played a carrier-based game a quarter century ago in which you took off from the carrier and attacked enemy ships. You had machine guns to attack or defend from fighters and you had to perform the attack run like you world have done in a real bomber. When approaching the enemy ship you had to avoid flak, set your dive brakes, calculate your dive angle, and then sight with the plane's dive bombing sight -- there was no UI that gave you any help with this. You also had to manually make sure that you were not going in too fast and recover from the dive and avoid flak and fighters while heading back to your ship. Torpedo drops were of similar difficulty. I'd like to see carrier play like this. WG has the code from its warplanes game. Of course, you would command only one plane but the probability of other hits by the squadron could be linked to how well you did with your plan'e run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,011
[TDRB]
Members
3,092 posts
9,355 battles
Quote

Its not as simple as its goo or bad. 

You are right, it is not that simple. As already pointed out there is good & bad in both. In the overall picture does the bad outweigh the good or is it a good overall improvement? As massive as this rework appears to be tweaking will be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,118
[N-W-T]
Members
1,845 posts
7,316 battles
3 hours ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

Personally, I expect to see an explosion of carriers at 8.0, 8.1/8.2 

I agree. I do think a good number of new CV drivers will quit early though. I only played the IJN CVs on the PTS, but getting damage on the T4 carrier was painful. No torps. Rockets do pathetic damage and set few fires. AP bombs overpen everything except BBs, and you need almost a perfect hit in the middle of the ship from low altitude to get citadels.  

T6 wasn't that much better. Things improved significantly at T8, but I can see a lot of people getting bored with them early on (or getting salty "you suck CV" comments) and quitting. If they're buffing AA, even more so. My planes at all tiers were getting shredded regularly, so that the final planes were almost always shot down before attacking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×