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

How to Play CV Rework: My Compilation/Guide of What to Expect and How to Play

78 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

31,036
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
23,353 posts
17,564 battles

Ok, bookmarked. Will trot this out in the future when people are asking for guides. Nice work!

rl3AJqZ.gif

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,572
[O7]
Members
5,344 posts
11,536 battles
6 minutes ago, Lert said:

Ok, bookmarked. Will trot this out in the future when people are asking for guides. Nice work!

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,624
[RLGN]
Members
13,517 posts
23,600 battles
45 minutes ago, Potato_Quality said:

Nice write up Puli. Unfortunately my main problem with current cv's seems to be staying. 

My main problem is ‘flight sim,’ (lame as it may be,) which I don’t enjoy; and ‘100% manual attacks,’ which I was never able to master even with all the assists in RTS; now magically I’m supposed to love that carriers have become the part of RTS that was the source of many player complaints? as well as something I was never very good at?

@Pulicat the fact you were able to make such a well written write up, taking into consideration many details of the rework, simply proves that carriers haven’t been simplified; they’ve just been made more complicated.

As to a specific point, how carriers are more like destroyers now, getting smaller damage over longer time periods, why then should anyone bother playing a carrier?

Comparing the relative simplicity of a destroyer, versus the listed and vastly more complex considerations needed to run a carrier after the rework; why bother running a carrier? What’s the point of even doing so?

NOTHING is really going to change what is already happening except the mechanics.

A minority will master all you have pointed out, a percentage will not care and will be the oft cited ‘OMG the CV on my team had a sucky wr’ crowd, and the middle ground rest will be various degrees of ‘just get by.’

I keep hearing ‘give the rework a chance;’ why? what has WG done related to carriers  over the last three year that should make me think they’ve suddenly had a ‘Come to Jesus!’ moment, and this won’t just be a colossally massive continuation of all the previous screwups?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,572
[O7]
Members
5,344 posts
11,536 battles
3 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

My main problem is ‘flight sim,’ (lame as it may be,) which I don’t enjoy; and ‘100% manual attacks,’ which I was never able to master even with all the assists in RTS; now magically I’m supposed to love that carriers have become the part of RTS that was the source of many player complaints? as well as something I was never very good at?

@Pulicat the fact you were able to make such a well written write up, taking into consideration many details of the rework, simply proves that carriers haven’t been simplified; they’ve just been made more complicated.

As to a specific point, how carriers are more like destroyers now, getting smaller damage over longer time periods, why then should anyone bother playing a carrier?

Comparing the relative simplicity of a destroyer, versus the listed and vastly more complex considerations needed to run a carrier after the rework; why bother running a carrier? What’s the point of even doing so?

NOTHING is really going to change what is already happening except the mechanics.

A minority will master all you have pointed out, a percentage will not care and will be the oft cited ‘OMG the CV on my team had a sucky wr’ crowd, and the middle ground rest will be various degrees of ‘just get by.’

I keep hearing ‘give the rework a chance;’ why? what has WG done related to carriers  over the last three year that should make me think they’ve suddenly had a ‘Come to Jesus!’ moment, and this won’t just be a colossally massive continuation of all the previous screwups?

I can understand what you mean, but if I were to make a guide of destroyers and how other ships interact with them, I could make it just as long for the gameplay parts. 

At it's core, the cv rework is simple, and this guide is mostly talking about more advanced thinking, akin to angling, aiming, positioning etc for any other ship in the game. Even the 'basic carrier gameplay' part here is only labeled as such because of the contrast to what I labeled advanced. Really there is nothing basic about what I talked about, as basics would be how to move, use squads etc.

A minority would also master such mechanics for other classes as well, but the difference will seem less pronounced because there are more of other classes in a single battle. a 1 or 2 cv per game, a good versus bad one is much more noticable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[BREW]
Members
21 posts
2,627 battles

Super helpful! I was skeptical of the CV rework at first (still kind of am, to be honest) since I feared the Player vs Mechanics being the primary feature instead of the Player vs Player, and the generally low skill ceiling that it seemed to have. But, after you listed everything out, I'm more willing to try it. Really curious to see how the new skill metas will develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,291
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,816 posts
5 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

My main problem is ‘flight sim,’ (lame as it may be,) which I don’t enjoy; and ‘100% manual attacks,’ which I was never able to master even with all the assists in RTS; now magically I’m supposed to love that carriers have become the part of RTS that was the source of many player complaints? as well as something I was never very good at?

@Pulicat the fact you were able to make such a well written write up, taking into consideration many details of the rework, simply proves that carriers haven’t been simplified; they’ve just been made more complicated.

As to a specific point, how carriers are more like destroyers now, getting smaller damage over longer time periods, why then should anyone bother playing a carrier?

Comparing the relative simplicity of a destroyer, versus the listed and vastly more complex considerations needed to run a carrier after the rework; why bother running a carrier? What’s the point of even doing so?

NOTHING is really going to change what is already happening except the mechanics.

A minority will master all you have pointed out, a percentage will not care and will be the oft cited ‘OMG the CV on my team had a sucky wr’ crowd, and the middle ground rest will be various degrees of ‘just get by.’

I keep hearing ‘give the rework a chance;’ why? what has WG done related to carriers  over the last three year that should make me think they’ve suddenly had a ‘Come to Jesus!’ moment, and this won’t just be a colossally massive continuation of all the previous screwups?

I've been trying to point out for quite a while that unless someone just simply hates RTS-like for the sake of hating RTS-like, this rework will not fix any of the problems with CVs, real or perceived. 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,624
[RLGN]
Members
13,517 posts
23,600 battles
5 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I've been trying to point out for quite a while that unless someone just simply hates RTS-like for the sake of hating RTS-like, this rework will not fix any of the problems with CVs, real or perceived. 

Well; some will be happy they aren’t getting instadeleted anymore? (unless they get ganged up on by multiple carriers, or realize they are constantly burning/flooding to death from dot...)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,572
[O7]
Members
5,344 posts
11,536 battles
2 minutes ago, ELOFan said:

I love this I am going to follow your advice.

Thanks, but would you mind snipping that whole quote? lol. Takes up quite a lot of space.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,915 posts
7,321 battles

Roughly a day and a half before the bell tolls. Thank you for the insight and the perspective, as it is helpful to some of us who weren't able to test the rework (not all of us have the hard drive space for such things). I just pray they did this rework right, but we will soon find out.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[SBS]
Members
5,226 posts

Nice write up, thanks for taking the time.

1 hour ago, Pulicat said:

As much as I really wish for direct control over my AA so that it's really ME he is fighting, I think this would be too much for a good amount of players to handle without suffering.

I agree, probably not everyone can handle manual controlled AA.  I don't see why a system can't allow for both manual and AI control.  By default its AI controlled, but allow players to take manual control in place of priority sector.  You could allow that choice to made in game as each situation dictates (choose between priority sector or manual control on the fly), or have it be a researchable module that you choose back in port (AA would always be manually controlled, with no priority sector).

Moving on.  The idea of only striking with the first attack wave and then sending the rest of the squadron back is something I'm not too worried about.  I think its a problem that should be fairly easy to solve.  The only concern I do have with it, is if that technique turns out not be worth while for skilled players so WG doesn't do anything to fix; and it becomes yet another crutch for low skill players.

2 hours ago, Pulicat said:

Be really careful when you are bottom tier against a CV as well. It's really hard to defend yourself alone against strong planes, almost to the point where it seems unfair. I hope WG puts more focus onto this area of balance.

Agreed.  This area needs to be looked more carefully.  Things are already going to be difficult to balance, the +/- 2 MM is likely going to exasperate the issue for both CVs and ships.  The +/- 2 MM is already a very touchy subject.  This isn't gong to help.

2 hours ago, Pulicat said:

Overall, I enjoyed my experience playing CVs, the same cannot be said for playing ships against them however.

That was my experience too.  Yes, the surface ship experience was against bots, and things will different with all player matches.  My concern is that the experience actually gets worse when its all players.  I guess we'll find out shortly. Well, thanks again for taking the time to put this together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,572
[O7]
Members
5,344 posts
11,536 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Nice write up, thanks for taking the time.

I agree, probably not everyone can handle manual controlled AA.  I don't see why a system can't allow for both manual and AI control.  By default its AI controlled, but allow players to take manual control in place of priority sector.  You could allow that choice to made in game as each situation dictates (choose between priority sector or manual control on the fly), or have it be a researchable module that you choose back in port (AA would always be manually controlled, with no priority sector).

Moving on.  The idea of only striking with the first attack wave and then sending the rest of the squadron back is something I'm not too worried about.  I think its a problem that should be fairly easy to solve.  The only concern I do have with it, is if that technique turns out not be worth while for skilled players so WG doesn't do anything to fix; and it becomes yet another crutch for low skill players.

I think the incorporation of a more precise and controllable buffer zone, as if you were aiming torpedoes, would do well for both sides of the aisle. If you missed that, it's in possible mechanic additions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[SBS]
Members
5,226 posts
5 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

I think the incorporation of a more precise and controllable buffer zone, as if you were aiming torpedoes, would do well for both sides of the aisle. If you missed that, it's in possible mechanic additions.

I saw that idea.  I don't think its bad one.  The reason I think a real manual mode is a better solution is that it can be made to scale with player skill a lot better.  Also, its more immersive.  It lets (some) players embrace the new meta by allowing them to use new skills, and creates more depth to the anti-air role some ships will play.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
Members
5,144 posts

It's amazing how easy it is to see the instant Negative Nancies who jump on any post that's the slightest bit positive, when you have them on ignore.

(No, not you, Pulicat.)  Great write-up.   How the playerbase reacts is not really predictable.   People think I'm pro-rework; it's not so much that as "Pro let's get to playing instead of wrangling about what is effectively irrelevant now."

If you are truly, absolutely anti-rework, why haven't you uninstalled yet?  It's not going away, even if you bury your head in the sand or somewhere else darker and warmer.  

All we can do is deal with it, or quit.  Won't know which for sure till it's been tweaked on for a month or two.

Edit: Always a laugh for being downvoted for telling the blunt truth.  

Edited by mavfin87
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×