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

Carrier Rework Not Ready for Launch - The Case to Delay

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,614
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,558 posts
5,158 battles

There are multiple issues.  Dull low tier Carrier play, bugs, Tier Skip... you name it.  I am making the case to further delay, to get it right.

 

 

Edited by NoZoupForYou
  • Cool 21
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,225
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,292 posts
8,194 battles

I don't often feel like upvoting Nozoup's vids, but this is one such time, +1!

"I don't know how they can make t4 more interesting" by starting CV/AA gameplay at an earlier tier, with AI controlled CVs (seaplane carriers/tenders) at tier 2. If new players are made aware at the start fo their WOWS adventure, of airpower, and how to deal with the 3rd dimension (the sky), WG would be in a stronger position to allw torpedo bombers, at tier 4. I know for many, the idea of airplanes at t2 is like, "what drugs are you taking?", but remember, new players have protected MM at that level, while sea planes (think (1915, Short Type 184) were very slow, their torpedos in game should be easy to evade. besides, players need to know, that skycancer, was not only a factor in ww2, but also in ww1, the 1st ship sunk by an airdropped torpedo was in 1915/

300px-Short_184.jpg

edit "I don't want something that wil jade old and new cv players"

Too late for that, sadly. The entire rework process, and all that has occured vis CVs the past 2 years, have jaded us beyond recovery.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
694
[-BRS-]
[-BRS-]
Members
2,181 posts
15,071 battles

I don't know I'm personally against carriers in this game so if they're boring maybe people won't play them

  • Cool 7
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,519 posts
1,659 battles
15 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

I don't often feel like upvoting Nozoup's vids, but this is one such time, +1!

"I don't know how they can make t4 more interesting" by starting CV/AA gameplay at an earlier tier, with AI controlled CVs (seaplane carriers/tenders) at tier 2. If new players are made aware at the start fo their WOWS adventure, of airpower, and how to deal with the 3rd dimension (the sky), WG would be in a stronger position to allw torpedo bombers, at tier 4. I know for many, the idea of airplanes at t2 is like, "what drugs are you taking?", but remember, new players have protected MM at that level, while sea planes (think (1915, Short Type 184) were very slow, their torpedos in game should be easy to evade. besides, players need to know, that skycancer, was not only a factor in ww2, but also in ww1, the 1st ship sunk by an airdropped torpedo was in 1915/

300px-Short_184.jpg

edit "I don't want something that wil jade old and new cv players"

Too late for that, sadly. The entire rework process, and all that has occured vis CVs the past 2 years, have jaded us beyond recovery.

So your solution is to have planes in an even earlier tier where the ships have even less AA?  Yes, the planes are slow.  So are the ships they are aiming for.

So they can learn early they have to just put up with something they can't counter?

That will teach a lesson.  Maybe not the one you want.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,225
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,292 posts
8,194 battles
6 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

So your solution is to have planes in an even earlier tier where the ships have even less AA?  Yes, the planes are slow.  So are the ships they are aiming for.

So they can learn early they have to just put up with something they can't counter?

That will teach a lesson.  Maybe not the one you want.

Ai controlled, ww1 era planes, single plane squadrons, one torp drop per attack run. Ships don't need AA, just their basic WASD. protected MM, means players will never face skilled opponents.

I don't think you are quite aware, of what sort of seaplanes, existed in 1914-18, and just how limited they and their tenders were.

The idea is to ease new players into the game, by teaching them basic "how to survive in 3 dimensional gameplay".

It makes far more sense, than for players, lulled into complacency by a game that does nothing to prepare them for the experience of having airpower present, getting their t3 ship devstruck out of the blue by a t4 CV.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
Members
1,140 posts

I think they should just send it out on the 23rd.

 

there is going to be bitterness and the sky is falling tantrums either way, and if it stays in testing sure they may fix some bugs BUT the lack of meaningful data and the bias of testes will get in the way, so it's best to rip the bandage off.

 

I am sure it wouldn't be to hard to add additional "random battle" and "co-op" battle type selections that preclude CV's from games just to appease a section of the player base who don't want to play with CV yet either directly with or as part of the team.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,710
[_-_]
Members
1,628 posts
3 minutes ago, b101uk said:

I am sure it wouldn't be to hard to add additional "random battle" and "co-op" battle type selections that preclude CV's from games just to appease a section of the player base who don't want to play with CV yet either directly with or as part of the team.

AFAIK, Co-op will be a refuge, since CV AI wasn't ready/available on PTS.

OTOH, I shudder to imagine what it might look like when it is ready, given bot CV's tendency to focus on a single target the whole match and their bot super-powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,519 posts
1,659 battles
Just now, LoveBote said:

Ai controlled, ww1 era planes, single plane squadrons, one torp drop per attack run. Ships don't need AA, just their basic WASD. protected MM, means players will never face skilled opponents.

The idea is to ease new players into the game, by teaching them basic "how to survive in 3 dimensional gameplay".

It makes far more sense, than for players, lulled into complacency by a game that does nothing to prepare them for the experience of having airpower present, getting their t3 ship devstruck out of the blue by a t4 CV.

I play co-op.  AI at tier 2 won't teach you anything valuable for playing against a real player at tier 3.  Coop won't teach the differences with PVP gameplay.  If you are going to have T2 torpedoes for PVP, have players use them.

For co-op players it would be a valuable teaching exercise. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[DOD]
Beta Testers
21 posts
1,565 battles

I'm not a big fan of the rework, but I think they should deploy it anyway - because they're at a point where they need feedback from everybody, they need to see how the meta evolves, they need to know if this will work or not with the community as a whole, they need to see if they can make it work in the long run.

I'm also wondering if it's tied to the console releases as well -- the old system would have been very hard to play with a controller.  This setup makes it much easier.   Which means they can't delay for too much longer either if they want something in place for the 'official' console launch.

Personally, after playing the CV rework betas and thinking hard about it, I'm now in the camp that it's impossible to balance CVs and they should just ban the class, and then re-balance all ships accordingly - but I give them credit for at least trying something, as opposed to hiding under the blankets.  Balancing 'carrier' versus 'ship' is HARD.  Out of all the game systems I've seen and played, I'm not sure any game system manages to achieve a decent balance except maybe Starfire, and that's because Starfire treats fighter squadrons as specialized ordnance, as opposed to a unit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
[SFBG]
Members
1,580 posts
8,154 battles
10 minutes ago, b101uk said:

I think they should just send it out on the 23rd.

 

there is going to be bitterness and the sky is falling tantrums either way, and if it stays in testing sure they may fix some bugs BUT the lack of meaningful data and the bias of testes will get in the way, so it's best to rip the bandage off.

 

I am sure it wouldn't be to hard to add additional "random battle" and "co-op" battle type selections that preclude CV's from games just to appease a section of the player base who don't want to play with CV yet either directly with or as part of the team.

^^^ This.    As stated by @Sub_Octavian, they are not getting the required balance data in the PTS.  More PTS testing will not help.  It's better for us to jump into this now, and let the Dev team start sorting it out live.

However, @NoZoupForYou, I agree with your assessment of T4 CVs.  It was pretty much rinse and repeat.  i really missed having torps on Hosho. 

BUT, they can do all of the things you've suggested later.

I think they should put it out, and keep the dev team on it when the data stats coming in.

i know I will start playing them right away.  With 1000s of WOWP battles under my belt, I gotta use those skills..:Smile_medal:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,042
[WOLF1]
Members
3,987 posts

Delaying will do nothing but delay it, for no real gain that I can see.  It's not going to get balanced on PTS.  Doesn't matter if they give premium ships to testers...it isn't going to get balanced on PTS.

As someone else said, rip the bandage off, and let's get things moving on the balancing on the live server.  Can't get done if you don't get started, and the whole issue has been talked to death, and we have another two weeks to go even if they don't delay it.

If people don't want to be guinea pigs, they should probably disappear for a couple months.  The rework is going forward, like WoWP 2.0.  Trying to delay it is pointless.  The forums are already all riled up, might as well start playing, not talking about it endlessly.  It'll either work, sort of work, or fail spectacularly.  I suspect that even complete failure will still not bring back RTS CV gameplay.  

TLDR: Don't delay it any longer than it's already scheduled for.  You can't balance what isn't being played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,454
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,099 posts
10,308 battles
37 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

the 1st ship sunk by an airdropped torpedo was in 1915/

Wasn’t that a stationary tugboat that was sunk? With no AA capability or even watertight compartments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,519 posts
1,659 battles
Just now, HazardDrake said:

Wasn’t that a stationary tugboat that was sunk? With no AA capability or even watertight compartments?

That wasn't actually my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[FTH]
Members
833 posts
12,655 battles

If running it through testing was going to help, the 2 (or was it 3?) sets of Beta tests, plus the Public Test that's already run would have fixed the problem...as they say, lack of players running surface ships hurt (as evidenced by the fact they made it to where you LITERALLY had to run atleast 2 or 3 surface ships to pay the service cost on your CV in the test)...

Atleast them just saying "send it" and throwing it on the live server let's everyone try it for themselves, rather than watching videos of it...is it perfect? not only no, but heck no...but it's what we're going to get apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[WOLF6]
Members
810 posts
6,967 battles

 

30 minutes ago, b101uk said:

I think they should just send it out on the 23rd.

 

there is going to be bitterness and the sky is falling tantrums either way, and if it stays in testing sure they may fix some bugs BUT the lack of meaningful data and the bias of testes will get in the way, so it's best to rip the bandage off.

O_K8LAMJTUrOGIanoCAn8iTPPCyyHaR0BMWbRyo4

You're not wrong.  There is no way the people here will be happy because most of the big changes are met with armchair QBing and idealized visions of what the game is about.  

Who cares if tier 4 CVs are boring?  The rework is partially about getting people to play CVs but mostly it's about preventing a 56% captain from winning 100% of the time against a 48% captain.  I like the idea that I can get outplayed by a superior captain (most are) but my mediocre skills won't lose every game I play... not for my own sake but others on my team.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
478 posts
3,237 battles
Just now, galspanic said:

 

O_K8LAMJTUrOGIanoCAn8iTPPCyyHaR0BMWbRyo4

You're not wrong.  There is no way the people here will be happy because most of the big changes are met with armchair QBing and idealized visions of what the game is about.  

Who cares if tier 4 CVs are boring?  The rework is partially about getting people to play CVs but mostly it's about preventing a 56% captain from winning 100% of the time against a 48% captain.  I like the idea that I can get outplayed by a superior captain (most are) but my mediocre skills won't lose every game I play... not for my own sake but others on my team.   

Why should my game be ruined if you suck so bad it ruins my game? That's stupid 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,454
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,099 posts
10,308 battles
2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

That wasn't actually my statement.

You were trying to imply that air power was a credible threat to ships in WW1. They weren’t. They had no communication, little navigation, and accurately was hilariously bad. 

Against warships that would mound even the most basic AA armament they would be an annoyance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,215
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,998 posts
4,848 battles

Give them time they will fix it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[SDIWO]
Members
1,186 posts
6,078 battles

Nozoup I respect your work for the community but I just am not a video presentation kind of guy...is there any way you can do a more significant write up to express your point of view than the brief summary you do now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,967 posts
3,875 battles
7 minutes ago, galspanic said:

 

O_K8LAMJTUrOGIanoCAn8iTPPCyyHaR0BMWbRyo4

You're not wrong.  There is no way the people here will be happy because most of the big changes are met with armchair QBing and idealized visions of what the game is about.  

Who cares if tier 4 CVs are boring?  The rework is partially about getting people to play CVs but mostly it's about preventing a 56% captain from winning 100% of the time against a 48% captain.  I like the idea that I can get outplayed by a superior captain (most are) but my mediocre skills won't lose every game I play... not for my own sake but others on my team.   

Because T4 is the entry way into CV's.  Part of the goal was to have more people play the ship class,  but right now T4 is a pretty massive turn off.  People in the know are going to realize that T6 gets much better,  people aren't just aren't going to play them.  Its counterinuitive to one of the redesign goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,626 posts
8,563 battles

I only played the first PTS for CV rework and I thought they same thing, its really boring at lower tiers. It feels like you're doing a lot of work for very little out come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
Members
21,171 posts
5,686 battles
8 minutes ago, Anime_Is_Degeneracy said:

Why should my game be ruined if you suck so bad it ruins my game? That's stupid 

That's basically what he was saying. With the current system, that's exactly what often happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,519 posts
1,659 battles
8 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

You were trying to imply that air power was a credible threat to ships in WW1. They weren’t. They had no communication, little navigation, and accurately was hilariously bad. 

Against warships that would mound even the most basic AA armament they would be an annoyance. 

That was Lovebote's quote, not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[WOLF6]
Members
810 posts
6,967 battles
6 minutes ago, Anime_Is_Degeneracy said:

Why should my game be ruined if you suck so bad it ruins my game? That's stupid 

I don't follow.  It's a team game and when 1 player's performance influences the game significantly more than the other players it's problem.  Or am I looking at this wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×