Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
LittleWhiteMouse

Would you be able to recognize when the CV rework was finished?

193 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

202
[TF-60]
Members
453 posts
15,385 battles

I think there will always be a slight bias.  The new CVs were launched in a completely unfinished state making play miserable for 6-8 weeks.  Using your analogy of Izumo—I personally do want to try her out again—I just need to train a captain.  But this is some what low priority given the memories of constantly burning in that thing

 To be fair, I think some improvements to AA/AA skills, and the spotting changes described in the closed test may get the game to a good place.  I would like a hard cap for CVs at all tiers of 2/ match, even if that means longer waits for CV players, but I doubt that will happen

Edited by General_WTSherman
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[CALM]
Members
28 posts
23,560 battles

I would consider it complete if the CV was just 1 of 7 (ranked) or 1 of 12 (random) red ships to contend with. Two CV's in a match should not dictate every move the other 12 or 22 people need to make to survive or succeed. That is just not enjoyable gameplay. My .02

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
Members
558 posts
5,048 battles

Sure, I think I would enjoy it if it was a good product. 

I just don’t think it’s possible to deliver a good product with the design philosophy that’s in place now; carriers being immune to one another that go up against AA that is designed to fail so strikes can get through. 

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[XXX]
Members
591 posts
1,410 battles
3 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It's perhaps a strange question, but one upon which I've been dwelling for a while now.  It's perhaps better phrased as "Would I agree with Wargaming's judgement if, after a few more changes, they declared the rework complete?"  I am not sure I have the capacity to recognize when the rework is finished.  This comes from my own inherent biases -- idealizing certain changes and system overhauls that I perceive as being necessary to make the rework a success.  While not so unilaterally biased as to necessitate the removal of aircraft carriers as a whole to meet my expectations, my prejudices may still blind me to accepting a finished rework if it doesn't meet my ideals.

'Well, what's wrong with that, Mouse?' you might ask.

It's one of negativity.  While I'm not advocating for someone to pretend to enjoy something they honestly don't like, once a negative-bias begins to trend, it's terribly difficult to shake.  It's easy to hate on something.  And once locked into this emotional state, it takes a pretty powerful catalyst to chance this perception.  One need only look at Izumo to see this at work.  She's a very powerful ship now.  However, for many old-timey veterans, she undeservedly remains the lemon of the line.  So too do I fear for the rework.  I'm terribly conscious of how much frustration I have felt regarding the rework -- so much so I'm losing patience.  I feel this endangers my ability to look at it critically, to recognize both good and bad.  I look back at my explanation of the sustained AA DPS mechanics and I can't help but notice that my own informative article definitely has a negative tone to it rather than simply stating the facts.  I am becoming disgruntled and this affects my objectivity.  It means I may become more dismissive of genuinely good ideas and it will impair my enjoyment of the game as a whole in the future.

So I'm forced to wonder:  If Wargaming delivered a good product with some upcoming version of the CV rework, would I be able to recognize it for what it is, or would my past frustrations cloud my perceptions and make me struggle to evaluate it fairly or even enjoy it?

Are any of you in a similar state?

I think the problem with the Izumo is that she is surrounded by good Battleships. Kongo, Fuso, Nagato (love her or hate her), Amagi are all great in their own way but the Izumo is a completely different playstyle to the other ships of her line however she plays pretty close to how one would play a Yamato AND the other problem is that she is probably not as much fun as the Musashi because she lacks the 460mm guns at tier 9 AND has that awkward turret set up where the third turret isn't like the Nelson and the Nelski where it can switch sides easily (sort of destroying the point of mounting all her guns on the front anyway...why they didn't design her to have all 3 turrets superfiring I don't know...).

She's a good ship now but she's still somewhat of a "wth were they thinking". I think most people would have prefered the Musashi to be the tech tree variant and the Izumo to be the odd duck premium.

As for the CV rework, considering I'm now being told that the RU server freaking HATES CVs, the EU and NA server still doesn't like them that much, I think WG are just going to throw their hands up and call it done after a few more patches, no matter what they do, they're not going to get the CV to a state where people are going to like them and the whole rework was basically for naught, a complete waste of time. We still have the skill gap which they tried to remove, they made AA much less satisfying since it tickles planes for the most part unless you have both a 4 point skill AND DFAA up. However it also has the problem of piss poor AA scaling up the tiers. Previously a dedicate bottom tier AA ship could still give a top tier carrier pause for thought (The Queen Liz had monstrous AA which even made tier 8 carriers back off if she specced into it, now, not so much) now even fully AA specced bottom tier ship can do bugger all. However by the other numbers, a bottom tier carrier gets shredded in a top tier game because their plane health doesn't scale very well to the massive jumps AA makes from tier 6 to 8 and 8 to 10.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
15 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

"Would I agree with Wargaming's judgement if, after a few more changes, they declared the rework complete?"

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that, already I feel, CV *gameplay* is complete: this is how they will play for the foreseeable future as a 2.5D mini-game (and I say that with 0 intended insult: I actually think this is how they should have been from the start as the piss poor RTS model was never going to make sense when 3/4's of the units were NOT RTS) where the primary gameplay aspects will be appreciating AAA damage zones, aerial puffs, and proper drop tactics.

As far as the individual nuances of balance go, no, it is not 'complete,' but then, it never will be. Because units released as part of the initial *alpha* are still be occasionally rebalanced and retooled due to WGing's Game Design style and Monetization methodology (per their patents) precludes the game ever being in a 'completed' state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
[RG]
Members
2,894 posts
7,126 battles

Fair question. 

I think the question I’d need answered would be, “were the things I enjoyed that were lost, restored?”

not, “can I find an alternative way to play”, but, “were the things that brought me to the game in the first place restored?”

the game is much different, now. The premises many ships were introduced under are no longer in place. We can’t forget what was. Is it worth it to learn to play the new game? Everyone has to decide for themselves. 

The game I came to play had limited radar and few carriers. DDs were fun. They could do stuff. That became so much harder that it became a chore to play. So I quit. The thing is, no one is obligated to play. When it stops being fun, and you have to do unfun things to try and get that enjoyment back...we’ll, at that point, in my opinion, you’re doing it wrong. ESPECIALLY if you’re paying for the “privilege “. 

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,326
[ARGSY]
Members
21,526 posts
15,632 battles
2 minutes ago, Yandere_Roon said:

sort of destroying the point of mounting all her guns on the front anyway...why they didn't design her to have all 3 turrets superfiring I don't know...

Are you talking about a Nelson-type arrangement, or stacked turrets in the manner of the Atlanta? If you want three superfiring turrets, that's not possible on anything other than a very light cruiser because the third turret being lifted up high with that much mass would cause significant top-weight and stability issues. If you are after a Nelson/Lenin arrangement, I suspect it's to do with the arrangement of stuff below decks and how the turret trunks, magazines and so on fit in with everything else that has to go down there.

The designers may have concluded that it was better to have the underlying equipment further forward, hence the guns face backwards. I suspect similar issues inform the placement of the guns in ships like the Myoko, Helena, Boise/NDJ. The Mogamis have all their fore turrets facing to the front, but the price for this is having A and B turrets at the same level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[S0L0]
Members
18 posts
3,464 battles

Once CVs are moved to Co-op only because to CVs we are all bots anyways, but give them full rewards. I think that we can all see it as complete then 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[XXX]
Members
591 posts
1,410 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Are you talking about a Nelson-type arrangement, or stacked turrets in the manner of the Atlanta? If you want three superfiring turrets, that's not possible on anything other than a very light cruiser because the third turret being lifted up high with that much mass would cause significant top-weight and stability issues. If you are after a Nelson/Lenin arrangement, I suspect it's to do with the arrangement of stuff below decks and how the turret trunks, magazines and so on fit in with everything else that has to go down there.

The designers may have concluded that it was better to have the underlying equipment further forward, hence the guns face backwards. I suspect similar issues inform the placement of the guns in ships like the Myoko, Helena, Boise/NDJ. The Mogamis have all their fore turrets facing to the front, but the price for this is having A and B turrets at the same level.

Talking about a Nelson style arrangement. I mean its not like the precedent wasn't there...the Nelson existed and did that exact method without requiring the third turret to swing 180 to hit something on the other side, so why the designers of the Izumo made it so...just seems like a weird choice, the only thing I can think of if if she was meant to have bigger guns in the initial design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,322
[KWF]
Members
4,888 posts
6,590 battles

I mean, you will never be able to satisfy everybody, that's for granted since we all has different "ideals" on what the rework should be. The worst part about the rework imo isn't the balancing itself, but rather the factionalism it has spawned that corrodes the community for the past half year now.

In the end @LittleWhiteMouse, personal bias is a human part of us that can never be truly fought 100%. What we can do is discern this bias for what it is and observe it through as critical a lens as possible.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

If you want three superfiring turrets, that's not possible on anything other than a very light cruiser because the third turret being lifted up high with that much mass would cause significant top-weight and stability issues.

Well... this isn't entirely accurate. Assuming you held, say an Iowa's, draft constant, AND added a third super-super firing turret over the B turret, then yes, stability may become a problem (if the barbette/turret are armoured) as it will increase the difference between M-G and B (centers of Meta, Gravity, and Buoyancy respectively).  However, given that any such ship would be paper, and likely a super-sized ship anyway, one can reasonably assume the 'standard' upper limit to draft, ~35 meters, could be violated. If for example you allowed the Iowa to draft say, 60 meters (and built the hull accordingly) then there is no reason to belief a third super- super firing turret would have any negative impact on stability. Hull endurance certainty, strength and framing would become potentially prohibitive, but stability would not be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,326
[ARGSY]
Members
21,526 posts
15,632 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

due to WGing's Game Design style and Monetization methodology (per their patents) precludes the game ever being in a 'completed' state.

I'm not sure I WANT the game to be in a 'completed' state - I think it's great that new stuff is continually being added in and older things are being tweaked occasionally.

 

@LittleWhiteMouse I appreciate where you're coming from. I may not agree with you, but I think it's a good thing that you can recognise your own biases.

My problem with the rework right now is that I'm simply not good enough at CV yet. I keep doing very poorly, although at least I'm not making a financial loss on Premium time every time I take the Ranger out into co-op. Yes, I was that bad at the start.
 

1 minute ago, Yandere_Roon said:

so why the designers of the Izumo made it so...just seems like a weird choice, the only thing I can think of if if she was meant to have bigger guns in the initial design.

I think you'd have to talk to them, which isn't possible. The problem is, I'm not sure we have a detailed English-language tome on Japanese battleship design on the level of Norman Friedman or DK Brown's works that compares the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,237
[WORX]
Members
11,361 posts
19,140 battles

@LittleWhiteMouse

 

When do you end a marriage??

When do you go to the hospital if the cost of ER services are enough to kill you?

I think its not up to us to determine when is the end the end OR are we there yet?

I think in my case, its a false expectation of balance while WG is going down the "In-game" balance rabbit hole I dont agree with.

Throughout the CV process... My expectation has gone now...  Meanwhile, surface ships have been nerfed to appease the rework. RIght now as it stand, I rather

 revert all changes from 0.8.0.1 to 0.8.4 back to 0.8.0. That is if they keep the current CVs as is or take them out of the game and rework them again.

I think its more on the policy  side and leadership problem more then anything else in game. IMO its time for Executive Producer of WG, WOWS div, to step down...If he like the current Meta he helped create/developed. Then its going to have repercussion relationship wise with the player's base.

I dont blame the no one else who followed the head of the Dept...  They're just take orders while fulfilling their jobs.

I firmly believe, the Execuitve Producer and his ideas need to go...

 

 

 

 

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I'm not sure I WANT the game to be in a 'completed' state - I think it's great that new stuff is continually being added in and older things are being tweaked occasionally. 

This doesn't work to your bennifit fyi. The reason the game will never be 'completed' as they have to constantly re-orient to the azimuth of just frustrating enough to spur occasional spending, but NOT frustrating enough to cause churn. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,326
[ARGSY]
Members
21,526 posts
15,632 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

Well... this isn't entirely accurate. Assuming you held, say an Iowa's, draft constant, AND added a third super-super firing turret over the B turret, then yes, stability may become a problem (if the barbette/turret are armoured) as it will increase the difference between M-G and B (centers of Meta, Gravity, and Buoyancy respectively).  However, given that any such ship would be paper, and likely a super-sized ship anyway, one can reasonably assume the 'standard' upper limit to draft, ~35 meters, could be violated. If for example you allowed the Iowa to draft say, 60 meters (and built the hull accordingly) then there is no reason to belief a third super- super firing turret would have any negative impact on stability. Hull endurance certainty, strength and framing would become potentially prohibitive, but stability would not be an issue.

Oh, for sure you could do it. But as you said, at that stage you are looking at a significantly larger (and disproportionately more expensive) hull to carry the same armament. I can't remember who wrote that big, detailed tome on Axis BB's of WW2, but IIRC it showed just how far the size-weight spirals of the post-Bismarck designs exploded as the designers kept getting asked for more and more. 

What I perhaps should have said explicitly is that there's no way you could arrange the guns in that fashion on the same hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,322
[KWF]
Members
4,888 posts
6,590 battles
4 minutes ago, Yandere_Roon said:

Talking about a Nelson style arrangement. I mean its not like the precedent wasn't there...the Nelson existed and did that exact method without requiring the third turret to swing 180 to hit something on the other side, so why the designers of the Izumo made it so...just seems like a weird choice, the only thing I can think of if if she was meant to have bigger guns in the initial design.

Supposedly this is where WG got the idea on Izumo, found on an old thread. Izumo is A-140 J2.

w4Z9r6K.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

What I perhaps should have said explicitly is that there's no way you could arrange the guns in that fashion on the same hull.

Yes, that is generally the case (baring a few examples of particularly beam-y, deep draft ships that could have handled a 3rd tier of MB guns; some of the later USN Standard types I believe could have handled this, especially once the extended bulges were added).

And the reason, generally, the draft limitations were set had to do with lack of available drydocks and portage facilities. Even today, once you draft over ~45 meters, there's only maybe 10 main ports in the entire world you can actually dock the ship in. Once you hit 50, I believe there's only 3. After 70, 1 in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,870
[WOLFG]
Members
30,577 posts
9,216 battles
6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

@LittleWhiteMouse

 

When do you end a marriage?

When she becomes a militant vegetarian, and it comes down to a choice between her and bacon.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

fake positivism is as bad as fake negativism.

The excuses for the rework in the 1st place, in large part, were drawn from fake negativism. Apologies if I find it difficult to fake the opposite.

As others, such as @Ducky_shot have pointed out in well argued posts, the Rework is a failure, by WGs own standards. And thus, as negative as can be.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
889
[WOLFC]
Members
1,977 posts
10,448 battles

As indicated in posts I have seen over the last 5 months, there are a few of us that havn't minded the imperfect product as it goes along, knowing its not perfect, but enjoying the fundamentals of the game as a whole.  As server numbers havn't dropped & spending doesn't seem to be down (Based on WG's reaction to CVs), I would say most people just kinda roll with it.

The Monotheistic anti-CV belief system zealots ("CV's are bad & must be eradicated" is a pretty monotheistic belief system)   have warped the conversations in the forums but most people are just getting on with playing the game.

 

In essence, most people wouldn't notice a good CV system as they load in their ships  & get going -  because most people are not seeing/noticing/caring about the CV system right now.

 

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,463
[KIA]
Members
3,549 posts
15,595 battles

IMO CV in their current state are fine.

 

Only AA needs to be adjusted. In it's current form it's either too strong or useless. Fix AA and it's going to be fine

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,314
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
23,119 battles

Since they refuse to recognize that the rework is an utter failure and yet continue to mess things up for all I would never be able to tell when it is complete.

 

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[KNCOL]
Members
812 posts
1,885 battles
1 minute ago, AlcatrazNC said:

IMO CV in their current state are fine.

 

Only AA needs to be adjusted. In it's current form it's either too strong or useless. Fix AA and it's going to be fine

I think a bit more than AA needs to be tweaked but CVs are more enjoyable to play with and against compared to the old RTS in my opinion.

 

Imagine the RTS but with today's CV server population...

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,784
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,277 posts
10,382 battles
4 minutes ago, AlcatrazNC said:

IMO CV in their current state are fine.

Only AA needs to be adjusted. In it's current form it's either too strong or useless. Fix AA and it's going to be fine

That's generally my feeling too.  Anti-aircraft firepower needs to feel effective (it doesn't actually have to be effective) while CV damage totals and influence remains moderated.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×