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

CV Rework: What we lost & Gained

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

866
Members
528 posts
25,296 battles

CV Rework: What we lost & Gained

 

A recap of what CVs were and where they are today: Just a note I am not here trying to push RTS back into the game but rather is there anyway WG can bring all these elements back into the CV play. That's what makes CV play attractive and brings in players. For example is it possible for players to manage 2 squadrons airborne in the current mode..anyway that's where this line of thinking is going. I have put it together as best as I could after 1500+ RTS CV games.

 

 

PRE 8.0

 

8.0+

Consequence

Fighters

Air cover, Air Superiority, Recon, CV Counter play

DD were less vulnerable

Limited fighters which are useless

To prevent counter play against CVS

AA remains unbalanced

DDs remain vulnerable

 

-Fighter Strafe

-Manual Torpedo Drop

 

 

Brought in by WG to bring balance.

-Removed

-Present

WG introduced this in RTS and seriously unbalanced all CV play. Many players could not just get a hang of it so the skill gap became enormous.

 

Limited Plane Load outs

CV players had to use skill and judgment to avoid being deplaned

Unlimited Regeneration

·       CV players are more careless

·       Frustrating for defending ships

·       Shooting planes down means more

·       Skilled players cannot be deplaned

·       Less skilled players will have less planes

 

Strike & Air Superiority Load outs

CV players could choose between the 2 load outs.

 

WG nerfed the US carriers and unbalanced the whole thing. WG needed to remove this but never did and as a result drove CV players away.

 

Removed

Less variety between CVs

Multiple Squadrons

 

CV players could manage up to 3-5 squadrons at a time. This aspect of the RTS is what made so many players love it and hate it. What WG should have done is not limit how many squadrons u have on deck but how man you have airborne.

 

Removed

WOWs players are not skilled enough to do 2 things at the same time. Veteran Player resentment at being insulted by WG

 

CV Captains drove ship & controlled consumables

It was your ship to drive

You could activate your consumable

Both Removed

WOWs players are not skilled enough to do 2 things at the same time. Veteran Player resentment at being insulted by WG

 

CV Variety

CVs could be researched all the way from T4 to T10

Over half the CVS eliminated

 

WG excuse is to work on balancing. Reality is the odd tier CVs are probably not coming back for a long time if ever. Little difference between CVs in each tier results in boredom. Terrible business decision that drove players away from CVs and didn’t attract too many.

 

CV repair

CVs were vulnerable to airstrikes and surface attacks and burned like everyone else. Players used HE because AP was ineffective

CVs get special damage treatment that limits damage and requires players to use AP making it harder for DDs to use guns to kill CVS

 

WG intent here is to seriously and preferably eliminate CV on CV airstrikes

CV Alpha & Aiming

CV alpha was very good and probably did need a nerf but never was. What WG needed to do was nerf the alpha a little and removed all manual aiming.

 

CV alpha nerfed so hard that torpedoes do little damage and are significantly slower

 

The whole point of the alpha nerf was an attempt to bring balance but unfortunately aiming is very much harder NOW than it was in RTS. Now they have done both and as a result the skill gap has increased in 8.0+ and CV alpha is in need of a desperate buff.

 

AA Balanced

AA was effective in all Tiers but was somewhat OP in TIER 8-10

AA is broken

This is a long list of why its not balanced. While AA has improved in lower Tiers in Tier 8-10 its devastatingly OP which means CV players cannot be effective support for the team resulting in stagnant game play.

 

Manual AA

Worked very well in that you could choose which planes to shoot first. Simple effective user interface.

 

Priority Sector

Ineffective at Tier 4-7 and unnecessary from Tier 8-10

Interface

Top down mode poorly conceived. Aircraft speed was excellent and so was aircraft maneuverability.

 

WOP mode

Boring and repetitive and poorly executed. Aircraft flight dynamics are 1 dimensional, players have NO options in flight level, aircraft performance, speed and maneuverability are significantly downgraded

 

 

 

 

Edited by Anij
  • Cool 12
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,837
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts

Well put together. Makes it easy for us non-but-not-anti-CV players to track issues. 

Edited by thebigblue
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,272 posts
15,135 battles
5 minutes ago, Anij said:

snip 

Needs citations + examples of evidence. Otherwise some of that information there is rather subjective. 

If you can put citations + examples of evidence, it could be a good presentation to support/feedback (WG) and the playerbase. 

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,878 posts
11,515 battles
1 minute ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

Needs citations. Otherwise some of that information there is rather subjective. 

If you can put citations, it could be a good presentation to support (WG) and the playerbase. 

Im not sure you can put a citation on all those aspects, some are common observation and some are a consensus of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,272 posts
15,135 battles
Just now, The_Chiv said:

Im not sure you can put a citation on all those aspects, some are common observation and some are a consensus of opinion.

Still need more than just that table for anything objective. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
215 posts
7,186 battles

Yup he's right on all of it, With or without "citations" Unfortunately this won't fix the game anymore.  WG  will never go back to the old system. This ship is sinking on all fronts and nothing will save this game no matter what we say and do. So play it till you get bored and let this game sink to the bottom like all other games that have passed it prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
866
Members
528 posts
25,296 battles

WG knows all this and any player whos played RTS knows this probably better than me. Besides I am not digging up patch notes from 7.0. and other sources. Now that I have typed it out its stunning to see how much we lost to the CV rework and how much depth and capability CVs had. All that plus the silly idea to rush it and beta test it on the live server were terrible decisions and unfortunately I see the same pattern with submarines. Besides if you want to see how CV RTS game play worked here is the best source...

ps that's not me...…...

Edited by Anij

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,272 posts
15,135 battles
3 minutes ago, Anij said:

WG knows all this and any player whos played RTS knows this probably better than me. Besides I am not digging up patch notes from 7.0. and other sources. Now that I have typed it out its stunning to see how much we lost to the CV rework and how much depth and capability CVs had. All that plus the silly idea to rush it and beta test it on the live server were terrible decisions and unfortunately I see the same pattern with submarines. Besides if you want to see how CV RTS game play worked here is the best source...

 

From a subjective standpoint, who played during the RTS CVs, I would never want to play with the RTS version of CVs ever again. Playing with them or against them. 

edit: My general opinion of the CV rework is, it's a failure. Particularly with the comments made by WG to consider not putting the CVs in the console version. That immediately said this whole rework was a disaster from my point of view.

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
24,164 battles
37 minutes ago, Anij said:

CV Rework: What we lost & Gained

 

Lost everything and gained nothing! The rework is garbage and will continue to be garbage.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,285
[RLGN]
Members
16,848 posts
29,524 battles
9 minutes ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

From a subjective standpoint, who played during the RTS CVs, I would never want to play with the RTS version of CVs ever again. Playing with them or against them. 

There's no other way I'd rather play them.

For all it's faults, and the OP cited many of the things RTS drivers asked for to preserve what we had; I, personally, prefered to play carriers as Admiral Halsey in the CIC, not as Commander McKluskey bombing carriers at Midway.

I sucked hard at manual attacks under RTS. Not that I couldn't use them, just really bad at doing so in Randoms.

That's part of the reason I played carriers mostly in Co-op; I was damn good at using the autodrop Attack Angle Adjustment Tab system, and not being able to manual drop very well didn't matter very much. (Bots being bots; it was also easier to use in Co-op.)

The new mechanics are basically the very thing I was so bad at in RTS, a 100% manual attack system. Sure, I can use it; but about as poorly as I could use Manual Attacks in RTS.

1 minute ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

Lost everything and gained nothing! The rework is garbage and will continue to be garbage.

I sometime feel like a one person choir when you preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,875
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
5,208 posts
20,505 battles

Under the current CV meta really the only way to manage two air groups at once is how it is currently set up. Dropping a fighter squad over a chosen point while carrying on with a attack run. It took some getting used to but I've managed to pick it up. 

The end game for all lines is T10. Currently have the T10 Midway, T8 Implacable, and no IJN line CV's or any premium CV's which would encompass the KM GZ. 

The Midway in current meta, I prefer sailing the T8 Lexington. Roughly same amount of damage output (sometimes more with the Lexington) at a fraction of the operating cost.

Implacable in current meta, almost same story as USN line. I get close to the same damage output from the tier lower Furious post buff. The slow reload re-arm time of the Implacable has me kind of thinking of free XP'ing to the T10 Audacious. 

The recent buff of the IJN line kind of makes me want to suspend efforts with the RN line and pursue the IJN line. I've sailed against the T4 IJN line CV and it's torpedos are so fast they look like a rock skipping across the waves. Could pick off DD's with those, without much lead time.

Edited by Capt_Ahab1776
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,272 posts
8,377 battles

CVs are the MOST balanced they have ever been in game since inception......period.      All your opinion does is clarify that the class being played is your issue.   More wasted bandwidth.    

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,364 battles

CV rework for me was like

image.png.6bb060e9bc5b27062b893d99c31c0de4.png

Lost my favorite ships

lost my favorite gameplay

lost the fun to play with

lost a lot money in premium ships...

What i gain? Nothing, is not fun to play with, is not fun to play vs, is not fun to have in my port.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,037
[MELON]
Members
984 posts
2,894 battles

Both versions of CVs where not the best but I tolerate the current version a bit more.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[MPIRE]
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,821 posts
10,838 battles
3 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

CVs are the MOST balanced they have ever been in game since inception......period.     

Regardless of how you feel about the CV rework, it's pretty hard to disagree on this one.

Compared to any point in the history of CVs in game, right now is the most balanced.  No more solo 80% WR players are running around, CVs aren't useless, and AA builds aren't the difference between "what AA?" and "what planes?".  Is it fun and does it have depth?  I think that's fairly subjective.

Generally RTS players will see RTS style concepts such as micro, APM, control grousp, and "build orders" are depth.  Players who are more familiar with twitch style game will see the different turn radii, plane handling, attack plotting and invulnerability frames as depth.  People will find their favorite type of depth and use it as an example of being fun.  While I'd personally like there to be more added to the rework in terms of depth, it definitely isn't as one-dimensional as some people claim.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,878 posts
11,515 battles
1 hour ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

Still need more than just that table for anything objective. 

I agree. Which is why when I get a ton of dd mafia advocating for their removal with some of the most Ludacris statments I ask for facts. They get pissy and try to say their opinions are fact enough and just as valid. I find the double standard applied a bit amusing to say the least.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,094
[PVE]
Members
7,589 posts
1 hour ago, RA6E_ said:

CVs are the MOST balanced they have ever been in game since inception......period.     

I agree with you.  The funny thing is you probably believe this is a good thing, while many others are seeing this statement as all the proof they need to say CVs can never be balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,272 posts
8,377 battles
6 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I agree with you.  The funny thing is you probably believe this is a good thing, while many others are seeing this statement as all the proof they need to say CVs can never be balanced.

Its clear they are going to be in this game, as they always have been...     At this point what more needs to be spewed onto the forums?   Calling the rework a failure..is a stretch of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,272 posts
15,135 battles
5 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

Its clear they are going to be in this game, as they always have been...     At this point what more needs to be spewed onto the forums?   Calling the rework a failure..is a stretch of reality. 

I agree with the balance within the game (as long as its not 3 cv games). My "it's a failure" stems from my belief one of the major intentions of the rework was it being successful on consoles, if WG does not put it on consoles; that's a large chunk of resources wasted. 

Edit: I have always observed/watched the rework in larger sense than most the forum playerbase. 

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,272 posts
8,377 battles
6 minutes ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

I agree with the balance within the game (as long as its not 3 cv games). My "it's a failure" stems from my belief one of the major intentions of the rework was it being successful on consoles, if WG does not put it on consoles; that's a large chunk of resources wasted. 

Edit: I have always observed/watched the rework in larger sense than most the forum playerbase. 

Devolpment staff has stated numerous times rework has NOTHING to do with consoles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,094
[PVE]
Members
7,589 posts
6 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

Calling the rework a failure..is a stretch of reality.

The rework was a large investment in new game play that was intended to increase profits.  The game has continued its decline.  The rework failed to bring in new players, it failed to stabilize the CV population, and just as many people seem to hate CVs as ever.  The rework is a failure. 

6 minutes ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

...My "it's a failure" stems from my belief one of the major intentions of the rework was it being successful on consoles, if WG does not put it on consoles; that's a large chunk of resources wasted. 

Yeah, when I saw WG waffling on adding CVs to Legends I saw that as very telling.  If they believed CVs would be profitable they'd adding them to Legends ASAP.  They don't believe they will be profitable because they failed so miserably here.  Makes me think CVs are actually damaging to the game and WG doesn't want to hurt their budding console market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[WOLFD]
Members
874 posts

As a non CV player who hated playing them before, I will not even try them now.  Good CV players are OP at low to mid tiers,  many ships do not have enough AA to deal with CVs of their tier let alone one of higher tier.   Endless planes means in a 4 CV (2 per side) game where they gang up on a BB or cruiser until it is dead then move on, defending ships have no choice but play dodge the torp soup all game and become basically ineffective.  No way to escape and no way to defend yourself.  AA effectiveness is no where near balanced, some ships have a ton and can kill 20-30 planes if pestered, while others struggle to kill single digit numbers if pestered until dead.

 

In short CV rework sucks.  Good player can unbalance a game and bad players will cost your team the game.  No way to fix this mess!  CVs are beyond repair!

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×