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

Why did they get rid of odd teir cv?

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

87
[A_C_F]
Members
59 posts
1,771 battles

Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game.  With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him.  Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot.

So, I was gone when they decided to completely rat (censored) CV's but can someone tell me why bending them over wasn't good enough, that they also had to only make them available every other teir which just compounds the teir gap in MM?

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,739
[TBW]
Members
8,624 posts
15,496 battles

So they could put the CV rework out earlier and balance it easier. They plan on filling the tiers, eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,036
[PVE]
Members
18,382 posts
11,377 battles
11 minutes ago, therealcomm said:

Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game.  With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him.  Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot.

So, I was gone when they decided to completely rat (censored) CV's but can someone tell me why bending them over wasn't good enough, that they also had to only make them available every other teir which just compounds the teir gap in MM?

 

4 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

So they could put the CV rework out earlier and balance it easier. They plan on filling the tiers, eventually.

Because with only even tiers, it was easier to have a difference between one CV and the next one in line. Also it lowered the tiers for matchmaking from 7 to 4, making it easier for CVs to get into battle without long waits.

 

There are NO plans that WG has released to put odd tier CVs back. There are early plans for making alternate even tier CV lines.

Edited by Kizarvexis
Spelling
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,370
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,675 posts
6 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

So they could put the CV rework out earlier and balance it easier. They plan on filling the tiers, eventually.

The missing CVs that are gone at the moment, are coming back in an alternative line of the same existing tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
77 posts
2,666 battles

I kind of like it every other tier system they have for CVs. Queues don't take as long. 

Edited by Selelai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,116
[WGA]
Administrator
2,105 posts
14,612 battles

Heyo Captains,

From the article from around the original release of the rework:

Quote

The main reason behind the temporary removal of uneven tiers is that they are too similar to their adjacent tiers and offer little difference in terms of gameplay.

Once the gameplay update is in effect and after some time has passed, we plan to release alternative branches of aircraft carriers. This will mean bringing back all, or almost all of the carriers removed due to the ship type being reworked.

We also intend to make different gameplay for the alternative branches focusing on other ways to impact a battle, considering unique approaches to victory and interaction with both allies and enemies. The word "different" can imply an array of diverse options. Alternative ships could concentrate more on helping their allies rather than dealing damage, for example, they might provide better spotting. It's possible that some aircraft types from alternative branches will be able to set small smoke screens, thus enabling them to save an allied cruiser from heavy shelling. Maybe they will even have the ability to help an allied battleship fight any fires that might be on board. Or perhaps even, some aircraft will gain the ability to land on water and capture control points, although they will be very easy to destroy. The options are numerous and we have listed only a small portion of them, but please do understand that these are auxiliary possibilities, that would be designed to accompany inflicting damage, as opposed to replacing it.

It’s very likely that alternative aircraft carriers will be more difficult to play on than ships with strike squadrons. But in several months they could certainly become an excellent choice for those who have mastered the reworked gameplay by then and want to try new options.

Source: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-tune/

At the moment we have no information about when the rescinded CVs will make it back into the game but please keep an eye on the dev blog articles for the latest upcoming game information.

Fem, 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Angry 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,302
[WOLFG]
Members
24,802 posts
6,142 battles
25 minutes ago, therealcomm said:

Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game.  With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him.  Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot.

With practice and experience, you'll guess right more often. Even with some maneuvering, you won't get a fully closed reticle, but you can still get some decent hits.

Another thing you can do is drop fighters over him. Kagero has virtually no AA, so you should be able to make all your runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,128
[TARK]
Members
4,190 posts
1,624 battles
40 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

The missing CVs that are gone at the moment, are coming back in an alternative line of the same existing tiers.

...in theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,883
[RLGN]
Members
12,043 posts
21,595 battles
40 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

With practice and experience, you'll guess right more often. Even with some maneuvering, you won't get a fully closed reticle, but you can still get some decent hits.

Or you can just not play carriers.

Less stress and grief all the way around...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,302
[WOLFG]
Members
24,802 posts
6,142 battles
38 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Or you can just not play carriers.

Less stress and grief all the way around...

TBH though, I have no problem hitting DDs. (because of invisibility anyway lol)

It's not hard to be reasonably well pre-aimed when they reappear, I'm just not expecting those big hits that DD players complain about. (although they still happen on occasion) 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
Alpha Tester
6,114 posts
2,985 battles
3 hours ago, therealcomm said:

Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game.  With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him.  Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot.

So, I was gone when they decided to completely rat (censored) CV's but can someone tell me why bending them over wasn't good enough, that they also had to only make them available every other teir which just compounds the teir gap in MM?

I actually asked that not long after the rework first went live. The answer I got was that it was easier and quicker to just have to overhaul the even-tiered CVs as opposed to all of them at once. They're going to add in the odd-tiered ones once they've got the rework settled into a relatively stable place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,296
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
19,992 battles

@therealcomm They removed the odd tier CVs so that we would see just how blatantly they were screwing us over. The CV Rebork has effectively removed all the CVs.

Yet they continue to screw around with the senseless unneeded changes. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[VVV]
Members
754 posts
13,107 battles

Because it was apparently too much work to balance all the CV's  in their  failure of a rework despite what mouth pieces like fem say

Edited by yamato6945
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,713
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,593 posts
10,811 battles
12 hours ago, Femennenly said:

Heyo Captains,

From the article from around the original release of the rework:

Source: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-tune/

At the moment we have no information about when the rescinded CVs will make it back into the game but please keep an eye on the dev blog articles for the latest upcoming game information.

Fem, 

Except the part where most of the information in that is out of date or half truths.

Are CV's cheaper to get to now - yeah, because your not buying a tier but the XP economy has had at best negligible or no change at all. Not to mention it is 10x more painful to grind 2 tiers worth of XP on one ship. 

Higher tier CV's getting larger squadrons - except where they are the same and some have been made uniform because that was WG's solution instead of fixing the real damn problems with it. 

"they are too similar to their adjacent tiers and offer little difference in terms of gameplay." - Find a line where every ship is so unique and different - they are similar because in most cases nations had a specific design and combat philosophy. Barring the occasional change every few tiers, especially in the beginning tiers. 4, 5, and 6 of CV should be similar, other than 4 is DB and TB only, 5 introduces rockets, and 6 is just more planes/bigger squadrons than 5. This is the early stages, this is the beginners area, it should be so yo help teach them. And for how rigid everything else is for CV's tiers 7-10 unlike other classes there are plenty of options that can be made available in ordnance to create diversity in the tiers while also further increasing aircraft or reserves of them. USN you have the transition to HVAR with HE and AP options and more if we want to experiment, as well as systems like Tiny Tim, AP bombs, HE bombs, and load out options of the bombs where instead of just "here have x number of 1000 lb bombs instead of 500 lbs" higher tiers with planes that carry heavier loads could have say 4x 500 lb bombs, 2x 1000 lb or 1x 2000 lb bomb, of HE or AP. Each new tier becoming more customizable. UK has variants on the 6" RP-3 including anti-sub variants if those come in. UK has variation in bombs as well, aside from the fact they should be DB's not LB's, and could and should more easily have a focus on torps anyway more so than IJN. IJN has plenty of option in HE and SAP bombs, and even has options in rockets between more 'normal' ones roughly on par with a 5" FFAR, ones more akin to the German 21 cm, and if you borrow from an IJA spun off project from the joint research even an equivalent to Tiny Tim - not to mention if we actually put historical accuracy back only TB's could use true AP in the IJN - and only as a Level Bomber, Only the B7A could actually carry an 800 kg bomb and function in the DB role, itself also a TB (The D4Y could only carry the 800 kg bomb in Kamikaze outfitting basically welded to the plane). Which offers then a choice of level bombing AP planes against either SAP/HE equipped DB's or maybe even in place of the TB's. And true alternate lines can play on what ordnance is used or other factors based on what "role" the CV has, what type of ship it is best at hunting. Case in point for ordnance IJN - one line using the never really fielded rockets, the other using historically accurate bombs on fighters, that combined with the SAP of what IJN should be using on DB's also replicates IJN tactics of using HE and SAP together best we can in the rework. In the case of a role in the case of USN say one is a more "mixed/heavy strike" geared at heavy cruisers and BB's - uses heavy AP/HE bombs and torps heavily while the other line is geared a bit more toward anti-DD/CL and focuses more on the rockets and smaller bombs, possibly removing TB's for a group with SAP/smaller AP bombs or having a more limited number of TB's. While the CVL evens only line that's possible we add subs in focuses on that job they filled using rockets, bombs and depth charges. I haven't touched it in a while, I literally have at least 2 full USN and IJN lines, and I know for fact aircraft and ordnance options for USN absolutely done on them, possibly IJN, and would have had UK done had I not lost my notes on which planes go where, posted up on this forum and only because I'm not allowed to put links in my signature apparently do I not have it just embedded there directly.

The nonsense of evens only their is material for 5 lines of USN, IJN, and UK, and at least 2 of Germany, Italy, France, and Russia. The only way they are 'too similar' or 'offer little difference' is either lack of vision, creativity, or knowledge of history - or rushing something out that isn't ready.

'We also intend to make different gameplay for the alternative branches focusing on other ways to impact a battle, considering unique approaches to victory and interaction with both allies and enemies. The word "different" can imply an array of diverse options. Alternative ships could concentrate more on helping their allies rather than dealing damage, for example, they might provide better spotting. It's possible that some aircraft types from alternative branches will be able to set small smoke screens, thus enabling them to save an allied cruiser from heavy shelling. Maybe they will even have the ability to help an allied battleship fight any fires that might be on board. Or perhaps even, some aircraft will gain the ability to land on water and capture control points, although they will be very easy to destroy.' - this is the last we actually heard about them basically - and I can only hope they have scrapped these ridiculous and infuriating ideas. The Alternate USN branch shown months ago had Essex at tier 10, and I think Yorktown at 8. And lets forget for a moment my issues with the fact that Ranger, leads to the development of Yorktown, that become the pattern that helps form Essex that leads to the improved Midway class and so on or in short my absolute dissatisfaction with the tree - tell me at what battle were carriers, designated as attack carriers later on and used to hammer enemy ships and positions, more so as CVL's became more numerous and available to leave scouting, CAP, and anti-sub work to them freeing up more space for attack planes on larger carriers, actively fight fires on battleships, or drop smoke screens for cruisers, or freaking land planes on the water that weren't ditching from damage or malfunctions? Long have us CV players shouted for the egregious omission of Yorktown, a key class in USN carrier development, to be rectified, and one of the concepts is a glorified fireboat? The Class that Launched the Doolittle raid? Another on which the capability to carry medium bombers was successfully tested though abandoned as bases in range of Japan became available? Forget the IJN side where a veteran ship of Pearl Harbor looks to be made the same. I'm pretty sure most of us who want our Hiryu back, and have wanted Yorktown properly in the tree, want to be trying to blow each other out of the water with them, and attack ships, some of which our planes may have historically attacked, not fight freaking fires.

 

And the overall lack of information, even on te Dev Blog, concerns me greatly, because the last time they went silent on things regarding CV's like this - they dropped the rework out of the blue, we can debate on whether or not that announcement stream was a poorly planned and executed one as they had to wait for footage that no one saw before even on the stream, or was rushed together to  get ahead of a leak they learned of to try and spin things in their favour, but they had clammed up for months and had 0 transparency on what they were planning with the community - who did not receive it well, did not receive it well in testing as to get a number that was positive, but still less than 50%, they had to throw out 16% of those that tested it's feedback, and kept insisting "we don't have enough data and have to push on" instead of getting the data, or y'know, releasing any of it when there is a lull in major events that is going to keep everyone off test servers or oh, right, CREATING AN EVENT TO TEST IT LIVE WITHOUT INTERFERING IN RANDOM BATTLES AND GET THE NUMBERS. You know, like what they did with SUBMARINES. And that now in month 6, it has met few, if any, of the stated goals, and has if anything, created more anger and frustration for both CV and non-CV players alike. And that in the middle of chaos that still requires major balancing tweaks that Wargaming seems unwilling or incapable of doing or acknowledging, has released a line that only added more chaos to any attempts in balancing and has the gall to work on Ark Royal as a premium to be released when the game is in a state of massive unbalance still, let alone the other 4 CV's that never should have been put back on sale. Cause now I'm waiting for "8.7 public test, were unveiling the other CV's and testing them on the PT for a couple weeks and shoving them out even if you all hate this other new concept".

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
976
[INTEL]
Members
1,588 posts
13,461 battles
17 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

You should really stop holding back, let those thoughts and feelings out.

+1

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,668
[KNMSU]
Members
6,837 posts
7,463 battles

My guess to to maximize profit return on already generated assets. In this way, they can market and tie loot crate purchases to not just one line of models (that already existed), but two. Moreover, the "new" off tier carriers can take the place of launching an actual fresh tech tree (say, Italian whatever), allowing Wargaming to dial down development dollars for a full fiscal year without actually appearing to do so (to the inattentive).

Edited by Battleship_Elisabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[VVV]
Members
754 posts
13,107 battles

Let's all be honest the rework failed it was a mistake to begin with yet wargaming can't or won't admit it.

Seriously  when do CV's actually get fixed like you know undoing the rework and bringing back the odd tiered carriers you'll also have to recompensate players but hey it will restore some good will to the player base. 

So how about it @Femennenly think you can to the devs about it. You know fixing their mess

Edited by yamato6945
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,167 posts
6,327 battles

They ought to just keep the CV tiers as they are but limit them to the tier slot they are assigned in to so that players can choose a NON-CV tier and play without CV's in the game.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[DENY]
Members
284 posts
4,660 battles

At the moment cv's currently play like the alternative line. Like not doing damage and playing support spotting roles. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,116
[WGA]
Administrator
2,105 posts
14,612 battles
42 minutes ago, yamato6945 said:

Let's all be honest the rework failed it was a mistake to begin with yet wargaming can't or won't admit it.

Heyo Yamato,

While we have publicly announced that some things did not go as planned for the rework, ultimately the goals we went into the rework with were mostly met.

As part of the CC Summit we gave a presentation on the CV rework, several CCs have presented media on this, you can check them out here:

@Kelorn and @Vanessaira with Warships Podcast: https://thewarshipspodcast.simplecast.com/episodes/episode-137-the-world-is-ending-again-naval-training-center?t=31:08 
@Lord_Zath also was kind enough to upload the raw presentation:

 

Some of the slides for more context and information:

image.png

image.png

image.png

Mistakes were made, yes, but from the data that you can have in full detail from watching the video, the rework was not a failure.

1 hour ago, yamato6945 said:

Seriously  when do CV's actually get fixed like you know undoing the rework and bringing back the odd tiered carriers you'll also have to recompensate players but hey it will restore some good will to the player base. 

There is no plans to bring back the old style of CVs as they were both unhealthy for the game, and balance as a whole. The rework did address this issue.

Fem, 

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,128
[TARK]
Members
4,190 posts
1,624 battles

Fem,

There were significant duplicitous statements made during that presentation about the development of carriers. Particularly around the collection of testing feedback. The presentation claimed WG did not know about how the multi squadron splitting into attack waves could be exploited (a la slingshot) despite community contributors no less making videos about how the Hakuryu could avoid all plane losses by dropping torps immediately after the immunity zone ended. WG knew or should have known about the majority of the issues which required 0.8.1 and 0.8.2 fixes. It is offensive to hear the company attempt to blame others for WGs failure to process solicited feedback.

And significant unanswered questions remain about how the plan to 'hammer CV performance into place' is not going to invalidate the goal of the rework to reduce the skill gap or make the class viable from a games played perspective...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,868 posts
9,171 battles
47 minutes ago, Femennenly said:

There is no plans to bring back the old style of CVs as they were both unhealthy for the game, and balance as a whole. The rework did address this issue.

Fem, 

the official view perhaps, perhaps not one we all share; I have not seen anything in many years of online gaming, as unhealthy, as the (ongoing) rework process, while the rework result, appears to be creating more problems than it solved, while leaving some of the most essential problems, unresolved/back to square one.

Problems with the rework experience over the past year, have already been recognised (in part) by WG, even if the company cannot quite, admit, just how badly those problems have affected us, as players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
207 posts
1,139 battles

Detachment from the game? Well im playing against a literal bot, and that not gonna change unless we have full manual aa

Right know its very difficult to play with the carriers and thats why the population dropped almost 80%

We are exactly where we started, very difficult to the average player and low population

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[ASHIP]
Members
77 posts
7,378 battles

     One of the problems with the rework now is it has changed alot from what originally came out, A Cvs alpha strike was lowered and compensated by the ability to make multiple passes,  that now has been negated by the improved AA so now Cvs are back to making one pass maybe two if its a isolated ship doing a fraction of the damage that the RtS CVs would do, plus its even worse when uptiered.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×