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

Have the problems of the old CVs been addressed?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

79
[2CUTE]
Members
201 posts
2,496 battles

I'm not one for making long posts, but this is an exception. Also, feel free to share your own frustrations (or dare I say, positives) of the rework. 

WG wanted to do carrier rework because of 4 big reasons. 

 

1. Low playerbase of CVs, due to the fact that RTS didn't appeal to most players and the UI was buggy

2. Big skill gap between veterans and new players

3. CVs being able to change the outcome of battle entirely (if the CV player is competent)

4. Wanting to remove RNG aspect of AA

Well, this all sounds great. The old UI was buggy (though this current one isn't good either) and CV mains were able to do a lot of damage. This is a fact, not an opinion. 

So, on comes 0.8.0. 

Let's see how these concerns were addressed. 

 

1. Well, CVs are more "action" oriented now, but they are also oversimplified. Auto damcon, one giant squadron, buggy UI, it gets very boring after a couple matches. At least in the old UI, you took time to master things like strafing, spotting, manual drops, etc. plus being able to multitask  effectively, with multiple squadrons. But this one, you're dodging flak clouds and bombing enemy ships with one, big squadron. That's literally it, take off, bomb, return, repeat. The aesthetics look pretty good, but once you take off the wrapping paper, it's not much more than an old arcade game from the 80s. This new carrier UI is also still very buggy, and is grossly inadequate for the live server. 

 

2. I wouldn't say the skill gap has been addressed at all, since players who have been on PTS for long enough will know what they are doing, while people who just figured out about the update today are scratching their heads. There are a multitude of different opinions about the balance of CVs on the forums, with many saying that CVs or AA are OP, and an equal number of people saying the exact opposite. I feel like if WG spent more time explaining to their players on how to play the game instead of relying on a few news articles and some CCs to shed light on hidden game mechanics, they would have more educated players in their game, and in turn, make the community as a whole better. This is what they should have done with the old CVs, instead of making questionable game balance decisions and hoping for the best. 

 

3. This ties with 2. A competent CV player will be able to punish any poor guy playing in his ship, 0.8.0 UI or before it. The only difference is that there are a larger amount of CV players who had months of experience playing on PTS that know the quirks of the controls, AA, and so forth. They will be able to pretty much outclass any normal player (as of now) and I feel like the same thing will happen with this system as the old one. Everyone tries it out, experienced players stay, new players get bored or tired of losing to experienced, CV population goes down again. If WG had been less stingy and gave better rewards to PTS testers, they could have probably gotten more people interested to play, instead of resorting to force feeding the live server population. 

 

4. This is my biggest complaint about the whole rework. WG has explicitly said that AA will become less RNG based, and that the rework will help solve the issues that the old AA mechanic had. Well guess what, nothing has changed. If anything, the AA has gotten more RNG based. Flak clouds are more or less, random, and you aren't able to upgrade the range of your AA. There's no hard numbers for damage besides short range, and it's easy to shoot down 10 planes one time, then shoot none the next. Fighter plane consumables are not balanced properly, and certain ships such as Hood or Texas got shafted because of the AA changes. 

 

My biggest gripe with WG is their lack of communication or understanding for their players. Developers have been lazy with how to educate their players on how to play the game, and when something this critical comes to the table, they need to be ready to fill in that void. They have  time and time again shown little care for what their players really want, and they aren't willing to communicate with them either. If WG wants something to work, they need to inform their players in advance and give an adaquate amount of time for them to react. This doesn't just apply to the rework either Alaska cough cough and if WG wants to stay alive as a game developer, they need to start listening to what their players are really concerned with. World of Tanks is dying, and World of Warplanes is already a failure. I won't be surprised if WoWs is going to start declining as well. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[WLDD]
Beta Testers
483 posts
5,448 battles

1. The rework has definitely brought more players to CVs.  I've been regularly seeing 2-3 CVs per team at all tiers, so we'll have to see in the coming weeks if that holds after the "newness" of the CV rework wears off.  The simplified gameplay definitely makes it easier to get in to compared to the RTS version, and a lot of the CV players I've talked to in-battle have said that they only started enjoying them again because of the rework.

 

2. The skill gap between CV players has definitely been narrowed, simply due of the removal of fighter strafing.  The one thing that kept a lot of people from enjoying the old CV gameplay beyond T5 was the fighter strafing beginning at T6 and how much of an impact it had on CV vs CV gameplay.  A skilled CV player could completely shut down a lesser skilled CV with a single squadron of fighters by simply using strafing to delete their planes.  That alone was the key mechanic that kept many players from making an effort to continue playing the CV lines.

 

3. See above.

 

4. AA will always have some randomness to it, but certain ships do have a significant advantage over others for AA performance.  Cruisers and battleships that are designed with heavy AA, such as the Atlanta for example, put up walls of flak bursts that the majority of times will explode directly in the path of incoming aircraft.  When you factor in how devastating AA is right now against lower tiered aircraft, it's not uncommon to see at least half of a squadron knocked out of the sky before a single attack run is made.  There currently seems to be some imbalance in the AA effectiveness between tiers, which is causing T6 aircraft to have little to no chance against T8 surface ships, with T8 aircraft against T10 ships being similar.

 

Wargaming has done plenty to try and educate players about the new CV rework through multiple news posts, which can even be accessed while in-game.  Short of forcing players to sit and play a tutorial on it from the moment they log in, there isn't much more they could have done to help players prepare for the changes.  The rework has gone through multiple testing phases, all of which have had many different changes based on player feedback.  If they didn't listen to the playerbase, a good number of changes over the years would never have been made in this game.  At the end of the day however, they can only do so much based on player feedback.  If they blindly implemented every change that players wanted, the game would be in a far, far worse situation with countless balancing and gameplay discrepancies.

 

At the end of the day, all we can do as players is provide constructive feedback where it's appropriate and leave it up to Wargaming to take notice and decide how best to address it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,925 posts
8,282 battles
40 minutes ago, iEatChickenMcNuggets said:

1. Low playerbase of CVs, due to the fact that RTS didn't appeal to most players and the UI was buggy

2. Big skill gap between veterans and new players

3. CVs being able to change the outcome of battle entirely (if the CV player is competent)

4. Wanting to remove RNG aspect of AA

Well, this all sounds great. The old UI was buggy (though this current one isn't good either) and CV mains were able to do a lot of damage. This is a fact, not an opinion. 

So, on comes 0.8.0. 

So skilled play, and victory as a reward for skilled play, is unwelcome? As for skill gaps, they will always exist. UI remains buggy, just new and different bugs. Will playerbase of VCs grow, delcine or stabilize? Too early to tell; but my instincts suggest that alienating the RTS diehards, and many others, (radar, supercruisers, changes to DOT dmg, spottign mechanics, concealment, ./.) the net population of the game will decrease, not increase. AA is not RNG, but then it never was (under RTS system it was a dmg aura with a constant, predictable, dmg tick)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,824
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,436 posts
7,384 battles

1. We will see over the course of the next few weeks. No one can really tell for sure at this point.

2. The skill gap surely became smaller, but unfortunately not in the way I was hoping for. I was hoping that the rewards for skilled play would be toned down (nerfing strafes for example, but keeping them in the game). Instead the chances for applying skill were removed, and now your fighter play is... barely existant? Just press a button for a consumable and that's it. Weeeeeee

3. Not quite sure on that one. We will see.

4. I actually like the AA system. It's by no means perfect, and I still oppose the minimum range system we see atm (where it can result in AA guns making your AA defense worse, because logic), but the basic idea behind it is something I appreciate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,614
[HYDRO]
Members
3,019 posts
4,612 battles
1 hour ago, SireneRacker said:

2. The skill gap surely became smaller, but unfortunately not in the way I was hoping for. I was hoping that the rewards for skilled play would be toned down (nerfing strafes for example, but keeping them in the game). Instead the chances for applying skill were removed, and now your fighter play is... barely existant? Just press a button for a consumable and that's it. Weeeeeee 

I have to add to that it feels, much more than the previous version, that surface ships play their own game, and carriers their own. 

Based on the few battles I had, I saw most CVs with very few plane kills, instead a total focus on doing damage. In the old days at least good use of fighters and air cover for teammates was integral to winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
959
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,848 posts
6,158 battles
1 hour ago, iEatChickenMcNuggets said:

1. Well, CVs are more "action" oriented now, but they are also oversimplified. Auto damcon, one giant squadron, buggy UI, it gets very boring after a couple matches. At least in the old UI, you took time to master things like strafing, spotting, manual drops, etc. plus being able to multitask  effectively, with multiple squadrons. But this one, you're dodging flak clouds and bombing enemy ships with one, big squadron. That's literally it, take off, bomb, return, repeat. The aesthetics look pretty good, but once you take off the wrapping paper, it's not much more than an old arcade game from the 80s. This new carrier UI is also still very buggy, and is grossly inadequate for the live server. 

Not oversimplified. Some aspects of old CV were too much. Normal surface ship gameplay is aim, shoot, repeat; with skill coming from the rest of players development. New CV works the same, allowing for players to enjoy fighting rather than all the planning. This is is a videogame, which is entertainment, and some people don't want to learn how to enjoy entertainment, because that means it transcends entertainment, it becomes work.

1 hour ago, iEatChickenMcNuggets said:

2. I wouldn't say the skill gap has been addressed at all, since players who have been on PTS for long enough will know what they are doing, while people who just figured out about the update today are scratching their heads. There are a multitude of different opinions about the balance of CVs on the forums, with many saying that CVs or AA are OP, and an equal number of people saying the exact opposite. I feel like if WG spent more time explaining to their players on how to play the game instead of relying on a few news articles and some CCs to shed light on hidden game mechanics, they would have more educated players in their game, and in turn, make the community as a whole better. This is what they should have done with the old CVs, instead of making questionable game balance decisions and hoping for the best. 

Agreeable, but WG communication is a symptom of a bigger problem. 

1 hour ago, iEatChickenMcNuggets said:

3. This ties with 2. A competent CV player will be able to punish any poor guy playing in his ship, 0.8.0 UI or before it. The only difference is that there are a larger amount of CV players who had months of experience playing on PTS that know the quirks of the controls, AA, and so forth. They will be able to pretty much outclass any normal player (as of now) and I feel like the same thing will happen with this system as the old one. Everyone tries it out, experienced players stay, new players get bored or tired of losing to experienced, CV population goes down again. If WG had been less stingy and gave better rewards to PTS testers, they could have probably gotten more people interested to play, instead of resorting to force feeding the live server population

[edited]. I don't have the harddrive space for another copy of this game. I can't participate by financial limitations for the hardware I can use. They could have given away every Premium ship and I would not care because my hard drive would still be inadequate. 

2 hours ago, iEatChickenMcNuggets said:

4. This is my biggest complaint about the whole rework. WG has explicitly said that AA will become less RNG based, and that the rework will help solve the issues that the old AA mechanic had. Well guess what, nothing has changed. If anything, the AA has gotten more RNG based. Flak clouds are more or less, random, and you aren't able to upgrade the range of your AA. There's no hard numbers for damage besides short range, and it's easy to shoot down 10 planes one time, then shoot none the next. Fighter plane consumables are not balanced properly, and certain ships such as Hood or Texas got shafted because of the AA changes. 

 

No, it's less RNG for sure. You control the variable that alter AA. 

 

 

This game isn't going to die, you simply make it seem like this is a massive fight about to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,197
[TNG]
Members
5,159 posts

Wg goals was to achieve 3 things. Make them fun to play, increase cv population and remove alpha strikes.

All three were accomplished, but it will probably be at the detriment for the game as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[AAA]
Members
502 posts
8,192 battles

@iEatChickenMcNuggets

I saw one of the devs explaining about how flak works and it was definitely not RNG. He said that the game estimates the probable location of the planes (based on direction and speed) and shoots flak at that location. He said this estimates are done every 'x' seconds (I don't remember exactly but he said it was every 2 seconds). So WASD is what was suggested to avoid flak fire. 

Edited by sansfaille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
817
[LBA]
Beta Testers, Alpha Tester
2,592 posts
15 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

Wg goals was to achieve 3 things. Make them fun to play, increase cv population and remove alpha strikes.

All three were accomplished, but it will probably be at the detriment for the game as a whole.

I think it's a little early to claim victory on that point.

A lot of people are trying out CVs, but I don't think many will stick with it. It's hard to find people that stream CV gameplay on the patch's launch day, even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,197
[TNG]
Members
5,159 posts
1 minute ago, Carrier_Ikoma said:

I think it's a little early to claim victory on that point.

A lot of people are trying out CVs, but I don't think many will stick with it. It's hard to find people that stream CV gameplay on the patch's launch day, even.

because the streamers are the good players that know what damaged has been caused.

Once people start getting decent at cv, the players being farmed will stop playing and instead play cv or nothing. there is no way gameplay like this will go back to 1 cv every 5-10 games, it's just not going to happen. It plays well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[2CUTE]
Members
201 posts
2,496 battles
6 hours ago, LoveBote said:

So skilled play, and victory as a reward for skilled play, is unwelcome? As for skill gaps, they will always exist. UI remains buggy, just new and different bugs. Will playerbase of VCs grow, delcine or stabilize? Too early to tell; but my instincts suggest that alienating the RTS diehards, and many others, (radar, supercruisers, changes to DOT dmg, spottign mechanics, concealment, ./.) the net population of the game will decrease, not increase. AA is not RNG, but then it never was (under RTS system it was a dmg aura with a constant, predictable, dmg tick)

I’m not for the rework either, I’m actually mainly against it. I’m just trying to highlight what “problems” WG is supposedly fixing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,925 posts
8,282 battles
30 minutes ago, iEatChickenMcNuggets said:

I’m not for the rework either, I’m actually mainly against it. I’m just trying to highlight what “problems” WG is supposedly fixing 

I just ran a rework Graf game in randoms, still not getting the 200k dmg battles (yet) but, skill gapping without issue. I forsee many krakens and salty chat stories. Inkedshot-19_01.31_17_29.19-0172_LI2.thumb.jpg.6b24588a31de56f8c0145f4e8faf8724.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×