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

Why not just start simple?

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

666
[LUCK]
Members
1,700 posts
23,947 battles

I tell this to all the younger ones in the office whenever they start a new project. "Start simple it will get complex and complicated as it progresses."

If I was in charge of the CV rework I think would have opted for reworking the CV play then tackled the AA rework, if necessary.

It seems to me, from playing the PTS and following this whole deal/ordeal, the new play is interesting but the AA side of the rework appears half-baked/GZ initial release-ish.

If the CV can no longer be deplaned and the alpha strike is reduced why not just leave the current AA and adjust that if necessary in subsequent patches/updates?

I recall, and I could be wrong, at some point WG said multiple CVs per side is expected. If that is the case, CV alpha strikes will be stronger with multiple coordinated CVs and generally less effective AA.

Again, I think it would have been much more fruitful to reduce the set of variables from the outset but we are where we are today.

To be clear, I like the game, I don't mind change (it's inevitable anyway) but I just don't want to see any unfortunate mis-steps that sullies it.

Happy New Year all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,380
[-K-]
Members
6,902 posts
11,447 battles

If two CV players on the same team are allowed to division, that will be a scary proposition and will make "nerfing" alpha strikes completely moot.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
6,318 posts

I figure they wanted to eliminate 'deplaning' since it holds our younger generation snowflakes accountable for their poor choices. How dare you do that in the first place. Next, they will be taking away citadels and giving every ship automatic heals. We don't want these fragile folks being sunk now do we? (/sarcasm)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
236
[ICOP]
Members
1,076 posts
4,023 battles
56 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

If two CV players on the same team are allowed to division, that will be a scary proposition and will make "nerfing" alpha strikes completely moot.

Under the proposed new system, how is this any different than a triple Belfast, Shima, etc... divisions?  Under the old system, yes it would pose a serious issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,931
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,800 posts
8,409 battles

There are a number of reasons why AA needed to change. Honestly though I think they should have started with a rework of AA, I think a lot of CV problems exist because the AA is frustrating for surface ships and for the CVs as well as being something hard to play around as a CV.

 

The first major issue is that because WG implemented AA as 360 degree auras around ship there are ships that with full AA range builds can block out a significant portion of the map to CVs. The worst is the Wooster that gets something like an 8.6 km AA range and DF which can lock down a significant portion of the map from CVs.

The second issue is that there is going to be a lot less squads attacking at a time and less planes per squad after the change so AA does not have to deal with getting swamped by several squads at the same time. This means that there needs to be a general decrease in AA power to some extent or an increase in plane survivability to compensate.

 

The biggest thing to keep in mind is that WG is dumbing down CV play as much as they possibly can. They want a CV player to be able to feel good about a game even if they played completely wrong and targeted the wrong ships. So they need at least some of the strike to make it through. They also dont want the surface ships to be punished too severely so they dropped the alpha a ton on cv weapons. So while I disagree with what WG is doing and dont like the precedent that this is setting for other classes they are to some extent or another thinking things through and while the gameplay might not be that great the visual and sound effects of flying through the flack clouds is really good.

 

On another note, I fear for how submarines will be implemented if WG tries to apply the same concept of making the game play as simple as possible at the expense of everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,691
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,736 posts
12,161 battles
1 hour ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

I tell this to all the younger ones in the office whenever they start a new project. "Start simple it will get complex and complicated as it progresses."

If I was in charge of the CV rework I think would have opted for reworking the CV play then tackled the AA rework, if necessary.

It seems to me, from playing the PTS and following this whole deal/ordeal, the new play is interesting but the AA side of the rework appears half-baked/GZ initial release-ish.

If the CV can no longer be deplaned and the alpha strike is reduced why not just leave the current AA and adjust that if necessary in subsequent patches/updates?

I recall, and I could be wrong, at some point WG said multiple CVs per side is expected. If that is the case, CV alpha strikes will be stronger with multiple coordinated CVs and generally less effective AA.

Again, I think it would have been much more fruitful to reduce the set of variables from the outset but we are where we are today.

To be clear, I like the game, I don't mind change (it's inevitable anyway) but I just don't want to see any unfortunate mis-steps that sullies it.

Happy New Year all!

On paper you are correct but it is also impossible to separate the CV rework and AA. They have the CV/plane side working well so not it is time to focus more on AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×