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

One big issue WG faces with nerfing CV

105 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

322
Members
371 posts

The skill gap. There still is a huge skill gap between the bad, good and unicum CV players. How far can they nerf CV and or buff AA before they end up right where they started with only the top good CV players and unicum CV players still playing CV? Is WG willing to drive a good part of the CV players away and end up right where they started before the rework. I think WG has kind of put themselves between a rock and hard place over CV. They wanted more playing them and they got that, but now with the outcry over CV they have to do something and I am not sure if they can do any meaningful balancing without killing the whole point of the rework. 

  • Cool 10
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
620 posts
2,193 battles

A good CV player on one team and a bad one on the other usually results in a very 1 sided game, unless the good CV pilots team are a bunch of Yolo fools. No other class can carry a team like a good CV, I usually get stuck with the nub:(

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,175
[STW-M]
Members
3,562 posts
8,278 battles

The skill gap, IMO is still present even after the rework, only more prominent since now there are more CV captains out there.

In this sense, the rework is a failure, and I dare say no better than before the rework. And I say this as a former RTS CV captain and a currently learning rework CV captain.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
671 posts
2,542 battles
3 hours ago, LunchCutter said:

A good CV player on one team and a bad one on the other usually results in a very 1 sided game, unless the good CV pilots team are a bunch of Yolo fools. No other class can carry a team like a good CV, I usually get stuck with the nub:(

Not anymore, the other teammates are more important than the CV.

 

Of course, the team with a good CV will probably have a better spotter and because of that the team might win easier, but CVs are dealing far less damage than they used to do (as well as spotting) and since there are no more CV on CV battle, the "pro" is close to the "noob" CV player.

 

In the end, it all deppends on the team, capping and focusing fire.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[NSEW]
Members
1,532 posts
9,722 battles

To me what distinguishes the good from the average are these:

  • Ability to drop fighter planes tactically.
  • Communicating with the team via chat/B commands/Mini map pings.
  • Spotting enemy ships vs playing for CV's own interest (aka damage).
  • Playing for the long game. 

These are what comes to mind when having a good player.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,194
[EGO]
Members
3,714 posts

It's fairly easy actually. For example they could convert all flak dps to continual dps and get rid of the flak. That would be a gigantic decrease in skill gap. They could remove exploits like slingshot drop, another big drop in skill gap. Almost any good fix will decrease skill gap, not increase it.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,673
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,057 posts
9,147 battles
3 hours ago, Venac said:

The skill gap. There still is a huge skill gap between the bad, good and unicum CV players. How far can they nerf CV and or buff AA before they end up right where they started with only the top good CV players and unicum CV players still playing CV? Is WG willing to drive a good part of the CV players away and end up right where they started before the rework. I think WG has kind of put themselves between a rock and hard place over CV. They wanted more playing them and they got that, but now with the outcry over CV they have to do something and I am not sure if they can do any meaningful balancing without killing the whole point of the rework. 

The challenge isn't in nerfing CVs (nor any balance decision).  Tweaks to CV performance won't affect players of different skill types disproportionately.  The issue isn't CV balance -- it hasn't been since early on in the CV rework and it was largely corrected by 0.8.0.3 with only the tier 10 CVs and a couple of tier 8s being outliers.  The challenge is to make CVs fun to play against by providing surface ships the ability to have some form of active defense.  This is where the challenge lies: making surface ships feel like they have some ownership in their survivability against carriers.  The numbers spat out are easy to tweak.  It's the core mechanic that's missing currently and needs to be discovered and implemented.

  • Cool 23
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[CLAWS]
Beta Testers
114 posts
8,825 battles
3 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

...This is where the challenge lies: making surface ships feel like they have some ownership in their survivability against carriers.  The numbers spat out are easy to tweak.  It's the core mechanic that's missing currently and needs to be discovered and implemented....

A thousand times this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,641 battles
16 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The challenge is to make CVs fun to play against by providing surface ships the ability to have some form of active defense.  This is where the challenge lies: making surface ships feel like they have some ownership in their survivability against carriers.  The numbers spat out are easy to tweak.  It's the core mechanic that's missing currently and needs to be discovered and implemented.

THANK YOU!!!! Now what is a "reasonable time frame" for WG to figure it out?  6 months?  well they have had that.... another 6 months??  A year??? 3 years????  

 

I am sorry but by then most will have lost all hope.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,673
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,057 posts
9,147 battles
5 minutes ago, Squib_Surefire said:

THANK YOU!!!! Now what is a "reasonable time frame" for WG to figure it out?  6 months?  well they have had that.... another 6 months??  A year??? 3 years???? 

I am sorry but by then most will have lost all hope.

About three to four months.  So end of summer is my best guess.  We're already seeing some of it being implemented.  For example, in patch 0.8.4, dive bombers are going to be easier to dodge for destroyers and select cruisers, so that's something.  I'm willing to bet we'll continue to see implementations incrementally rather than one big hallelujah patch.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,641 battles

@LittleWhiteMouse What I fail to understand is why did they rush the deployment?  Not enough data is a sorry excuse, would it not have been better to spend 6 month or heck even 9 or 12 months testing and they would never have had all the drama, that I am sorry to say, but WG created for themselves because they were impatient.  

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
271
[WOLFC]
Members
619 posts
22,471 battles
5 minutes ago, Squib_Surefire said:

What I fail to understand is why did they rush the deployment?  Not enough data is a sorry excuse, would it not have been better to spend 6 month or heck even 9 or 12 months testing and they would never have had all the drama, that I am sorry to say, but WG created for themselves because they were impatient.  

Testing how? The PTS is inadequate for the task. Not enough people use it and people play differently on the PTS compared to the live server (at least the NA server) so you can gain only so much insight from it. What was WG going to do, give CVs to CCs and supertesters on the live servers and say play them until you're eyes cross? There aren't enough CCs and supertesters for that. So you get the basic functionality working then throw them to the masses and see what happens. I don't know what other course WG could have taken.

Yes, WG could have dropped CVs from the game entirely or kept the old RTS system but that is a discussion for another thread. Many others, in fact, if you browse the forum.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
6,060 battles
34 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

About three to four months.  So end of summer is my best guess.  We're already seeing some of it being implemented.  For example, in patch 0.8.4, dive bombers are going to be easier to dodge for destroyers and select cruisers, so that's something.  I'm willing to bet we'll continue to see implementations incrementally rather than one big hallelujah patch.

Thanks for this LWM. I had my bags half packed but I can twiddle my thumbs for a reasonable and quasi-known timeframe from a known reliable source. :fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,641 battles
13 minutes ago, Rumple010 said:

Testing how? The PTS is inadequate for the task. Not enough people use it and people play differently on the PTS compared to the live server (at least the NA server) so you can gain only so much insight from it. What was WG going to do, give CVs to CCs and supertesters on the live servers and say play them until you're eyes cross? There aren't enough CCs and supertesters for that. So you get the basic functionality working then throw them to the masses and see what happens. I don't know what other course WG could have taken.

Well here is a thought......  I was not fun......  If it was fun, people would have played the hell out of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,297
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,029 battles

@Squib_Surefire Bravo! Regardless of what others say about PT being unable to provide enough data. In the current PT format they are correct.

WG could have collected all the data needed by running 24/7 PT sessions with plenty of testers attracted by worthwhile rewards that carried over to the regular account so they would not lose progress. The PT could have been set up just as the live game without all the gimmicks other than a modest amount of credits, doubloons and a 50% cut in ship research and purchase cost.

@LittleWhiteMouse but then again why shouldn't WG not be set in their ways of frustrating the entire player population? Thinking outside the box appears to be prohibited.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,673
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,057 posts
9,147 battles
48 minutes ago, Squib_Surefire said:

@LittleWhiteMouse What I fail to understand is why did they rush the deployment?  Not enough data is a sorry excuse, would it not have been better to spend 6 month or heck even 9 or 12 months testing and they would never have had all the drama, that I am sorry to say, but WG created for themselves because they were impatient.  

 

20 minutes ago, Squib_Surefire said:

Well here is a thought......  I was not fun......  If it was fun, people would have played the hell out of it

As nice as that would have been, it's not realistic.  Consider the following issues that have already been found:

  • Enlightened dropping
  • Slingshot dropping
  • Flying Shimakazes
  • F-recall spam
  • AA DPS being too strong
  • AA DPS being too weak
  • Aircraft speed
  • IJN Reserves not being deep enough
  • Dive Bomber accuracy
  • Aerial detection is too high
  • Fighters not activating fast enough
  • CV sniping
  • Reinforcement sector UI
  • Surface ships feeling victimized
  • CV deplaning
  • 400k+ damage games

Now, public test could (in theory) eventually find these things.  But you have to ask yourself:  How many people would it take and how long would it take them?  I remind you that not all of these issues existed from the start and only came to light after other changes had been made.  It's been an ongoing process since 2017, so it's not like they're dragging their heels on this and it's not like they're rushing either.  The CV rebalance is easily WG's primary focus at the moment with other projects working around its implementation and balance.  And even with this said, it's still not progressing as fast as they would like it.  Locking it behind a test server would have easily doubled or tripled the time it took and we'd still see it show up on live, incomplete and in need of changes.

I mean I get it -- don't think I don't.  It sucks playing through a testing phase.  Trust me, I know.  I've been doing it non-stop in this game since October 2015.  I've got quite the thick skin for playing with unfinished and unbalanced assets in World of Warships.  But you cannot fault Wargaming for not trying to get this right.  That they're knuckling down and still plugging away at it instead of washing their hands and saying "good enough" is a testament to that.  What you can fault them for is making the game experience crappy.  They're working hard.  It's just a pain to play while they're toiling away.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,157
[TARK]
Members
4,263 posts
1,630 battles
47 minutes ago, Rumple010 said:

Testing how? The PTS is inadequate for the task. Not enough people use it and people play differently on the PTS compared to the live server (at least the NA server) so you can gain only so much insight from it. What was WG going to do, give CVs to CCs and supertesters on the live servers and say play them until you're eyes cross? There aren't enough CCs and supertesters for that. So you get the basic functionality working then throw them to the masses and see what happens. I don't know what other course WG could have taken.

Yes, WG could have dropped CVs from the game entirely or kept the old RTS system but that is a discussion for another thread. Many others, in fact, if you browse the forum.

WG could pay people to test the game...as employees of WG.

They dont...despite being a large gaming company. They prefer to have us do their work for them.

3 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

 

As nice as that would have been, it's not realistic.  Consider the following issues that have already been found:

  • Enlightened dropping
  • Slingshot dropping
  • Flying Shimakazes
  • F-recall spam
  • AA DPS being too strong
  • AA DPS being too weak
  • Aircraft speed
  • IJN Reserves not being deep enough
  • Dive Bomber accuracy
  • Aerial detection is too high
  • Fighters not activating fast enough
  • CV sniping
  • Reinforcement sector UI
  • Surface ships feeling victimized
  • CV deplaning
  • 400k+ damage games

Now, public test could (in theory) eventually find these things.  But you have to ask yourself:  How many people would it take and how long would it take them?  I remind you that not all of these issues existed from the start and only came to light after other changes had been made.  It's been an ongoing process since 2017, so it's not like they're dragging their heels on this and it's not like they're rushing either.  The CV rebalance is easily WG's primary focus at the moment with other projects working around its implementation and balance.  And even with this said, it's still not progressing as fast as they would like it.  Locking it behind a test server would have easily doubled or tripled the time it took and we'd still see it show up on live, incomplete and in need of changes.

I mean I get it -- don't think I don't.  It sucks playing through a testing phase.  Trust me, I know.  I've been doing it non-stop in this game since October 2015.  I've got quite the thick skin for playing with unfinished and unbalanced assets in World of Warships.  But you cannot fault Wargaming for not trying to get this right.  That they're knuckling down and still plugging away at it instead of washing their hands and saying "good enough" is a testament to that.  What you can fault them for is making the game experience crappy.  They're working hard.  It's just a pain to play while they're toiling away.

All of those issues were noted in the PTS...with the exception of 400k games (because the bots suicide themselves too quickly in the PTS mode).

Most of them were raised to WG as serious problems with the rework...and the feedback was ignored.

PTS is not about testing mechanics for gameplay balancing. I think it is more for testing the marketing of gameplay mechanics.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,673
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,057 posts
9,147 battles
Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

All of those issues were noted in the PTS...with the exception of 400k games (because the bots suicide themselves too quickly in the PTS mode).

No, they weren't.  Some were dependent upon other changes being made -- changes that only came as a result from playing on live.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,157
[TARK]
Members
4,263 posts
1,630 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

No, they weren't.  Some were dependent upon other changes being made -- changes that only came as a result from playing on live.

Such as?

Enlightened drops were known during the PTS...there was discussion about how the bombs shot forward at the end of the attack sequence.

Slingshot drop was known to be possible.

Community contributors made videos about the flying Shima idea.

F-recall spam was mentioned in feedback

AA DPS being mismatched because of the short/middle/long range auras was vehemently protested.

Aircraft speed and its impact on spotting was noted and gleefully hoped for by CV mains.

IJN reserves perhaps not...

DB accuracy was known and discussed as being problematic for DDs.

Aerial detection speeds were known to be a problem (it was intended to be a FEATURE).

Fighters were known to be useless (another feature).

CV sniping was a 'problem' that was 'fixed'...and now CVs are too hard to kill.

Reinforcement UI was complained about for being too hard to use and immersion breaking.

Etc.

Maybe people didnt complain to you...but they certainly gave feedback to WG...and just like with feedback that has been going to WG for years about the RTS carrier situation, it was ignored.

You have my kudos for working with them for as long as you have. You are far more patient than I am.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,115
[TDRB]
Members
3,346 posts
10,318 battles
Quote

The challenge is to make CVs fun to play against by providing surface ships the ability to have some form of active defense.  This is where the challenge lies: making surface ships feel like they have some ownership in their survivability against carriers.  The numbers spat out are easy to tweak.  It's the core mechanic that's missing currently and needs to be discovered and implemented

This sounds like a balancing issue to me. What ever you wish to call it, I agree the "core mechanic" is the missing piece. My question is "does that missing link exist?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,673
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,057 posts
9,147 battles
3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Etc.

Maybe people didnt complain to you...but they certainly gave feedback to WG...

Yeah, that doesn't hold water nor does your list.  Short of what's catalogued by the Supertest Coordinators, non-employees have no way knowing the full scope of what has and has not been fed back to Wargaming.  All we have are what fellow players have said they have brought up and those we have reported ourselves. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[KSE]
Beta Testers
392 posts
13,895 battles
40 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@Squib_Surefire Bravo! Regardless of what others say about PT being unable to provide enough data. In the current PT format they are correct.

WG could have collected all the data needed by running 24/7 PT sessions with plenty of testers attracted by worthwhile rewards that carried over to the regular account so they would not lose progress. The PT could have been set up just as the live game without all the gimmicks other than a modest amount of credits, doubloons and a 50% cut in ship research and purchase cost.

@LittleWhiteMouse but then again why shouldn't WG not be set in their ways of frustrating the entire player population? Thinking outside the box appears to be prohibited.  

^

This. There is no excuse for WG. I am tired of playing the guinea pig.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[TIGRB]
Members
722 posts
15,432 battles
2 hours ago, HLS30 said:

A thousand times this.

Times another 1,000 and the math adds up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,288
[SOV]
Members
2,959 posts
6 hours ago, Venac said:

The skill gap. There still is a huge skill gap between the bad, good and unicum CV players. How far can they nerf CV and or buff AA before they end up right where they started with only the top good CV players and unicum CV players still playing CV? Is WG willing to drive a good part of the CV players away and end up right where they started before the rework. I think WG has kind of put themselves between a rock and hard place over CV. They wanted more playing them and they got that, but now with the outcry over CV they have to do something and I am not sure if they can do any meaningful balancing without killing the whole point of the rework. 

No the community needs to settle down and realisw that one plane in the aor is nothing.

Planes have NO alpha strike but some how this is always missed.

The problem with the cv rework is the insanity of compma ing for no reason.

RTS days I one shoted Romas and all things German. Now you cannot one shot ever.

Thw problem is the insanity of the CC amd non stop itching post.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
21 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

About three to four months.  So end of summer is my best guess.  We're already seeing some of it being implemented.  For example, in patch 0.8.4, dive bombers are going to be easier to dodge for destroyers and select cruisers, so that's something.  I'm willing to bet we'll continue to see implementations incrementally rather than one big hallelujah patch.

Speaking as someone whose main account is on another server, I know a lot of experienced players (and whales) who are going to stop playing or significantly cut back if it takes that long - even more so than they already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×