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

Whats is wargammings goal with CV's?

82 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

379
[KILL]
Members
809 posts
10,774 battles

To create a more dynamic gaming experience?

To make more revenue?

Can Wging answer this?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[FG]
Members
566 posts
4,728 battles

The goal of the rework AFAIK was to make them more popular and flatten the skill gap. 

I'd say they have reached that goal: to the detriment of many other things. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
Members
1,291 posts
9,884 battles

WG's goal was to make CV just another class with no restrictions. They thought everyone was going to love the reworked CV and play them all the time. The massive hatred of CV caught WG completely by surprise, they didn't expect it at all which is why they've had to quietly forget some of their goals for CV such as unrestricted MM.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,699
[WOLF5]
Members
3,407 posts
3,575 battles

To be able to treat them like any other class, they work well with the game, don't need special MM, things like that.

The core issue is the CV concept requires restrictions, we can't pretend they're just like surface ships because they're not even surface ships.

In addition, I've just concluded WG has no idea how to make them work. Can it theoretically be done? Probably. Does WG have a clue how to? Well if they do they're hiding it pretty damn well.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,512
[RLGN]
Members
13,299 posts
23,188 battles
10 minutes ago, SovereignEagle said:

The goal of the rework AFAIK was to make them more popular.

Yes? Sorta Kinda?

Quote

...and flatten the skill gap.

FAILED...

...MISERABLY...

All they did was transfer the skill gap from one set of mechanics, RTS, to another, FPS (SNES level,) Flight Sim.

Quote

I'd say they have reached that goal: to the detriment of many other things. 

They took a generally hated, but tolerated mechanic, (due to rarity,) and increased the number of people using it.

Why whoever was responsible thought that would be a good thing escapes me...

12 minutes ago, Rouxi said:

WG's goal was to make CV just another class with no restrictions. They thought everyone was going to love the reworked CV and play them all the time. The massive hatred of CV caught WG completely by surprise, they didn't expect it at all which is why they've had to quietly forget some of their goals for CV such as unrestricted MM.  

As you said, and I’ve said before; WG thought everyone would love the new, ‘simpler’ system, (I don’t believe it is, but whatever,) and after that blew up in their face, they had no idea what to do.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12 posts
38 battles

It's for assured spotting for battleships to have something to shoot at all game.

 It's to keep the DD population hemmed in.

 And a ship that Bad players can survive in more than 5 minutes and get to play the whole game.

Edited by Did_I_hurt_U
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[MASSD]
Members
500 posts
29,342 battles

First off they need to eliminate the wretched rocket planes ( which never should have been introduced in the first place ) that never miss and  spot and kill Dds . Cv play is as it always has been the good one wins the bad one loses and the other 11 players on the team just hang on and do the best they can. I'm still waiting for that  No CV battle option . Either that or  allow my DD's AA to be able to focus ONLY on attacking planes with the capability to shoot them ALL down before they can launch their attack on me .  Change their spotting capabilities to mini map only .  It's bad enough when you get a  squadron stuck on your head bombed on 3 times and get detected across the entire map without everybody else shooting you to pieces . Every time I get in a CV game I just want to quit the battle and move on to another match . It's frustrating to get in a match against an opponent that you have zero chance of being able to defend yourself from . S o I play it out get rocketed and die  ending up being completely worthless .Bombers I can deal with, torp planes I can deal with  rocket planes are flat out just too OP . Even if I'm in a (cough cough ) AA cruisers built to the max for AA damage those rocket planes get through every time and can deal up to 25 % of my health in damage . They not only  " reworked " the CVs they messed up everybody elses AA by shortening it's range capabilities through the change of upgrades and capt skills . Oh yeah what happened to planes only having one torpedo ?  I'm seeing 2 dropped  per plane  now and when they all get through my pathetic excuse of the new  Sector AA air defense  That's 6 torpedoes I have to dodge with at least 6 more coming ( if not 12 ) because the planes flew over me and all my AA is now worthlessly undermanned on the opposite side of the ship . Who dreamed this garbage up ?

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[MASSD]
Members
500 posts
29,342 battles

Like I said They only hurt the other 11 players  on the team . The good one wins the bad one loses . Same as it has always been . Cvs are too OP can never be completely balanced and need to be dropped . Or I'll be glad to have a no CV option in the battle . It sucks having one players good / poor ability being the deciding factor  of the entire match .

 

 

Edited by Capt_Q_Sparrow
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,733
[SIDE]
Members
3,600 posts

It has always been to add aspects of the aerial elements of naval warfare that not only existed in the era of the ships featured in this game but dominated it.

Other than that, they also expose agenda whiners and generate maximum salt among the lowest skill DD mains who have one playstyle and won't alter it even a little when carriers are present.

Edited by thebigblue
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,242
[INTEL]
Members
12,145 posts
33,706 battles
1 hour ago, WES_HoundDog said:

To create a more dynamic gaming experience?

To make more revenue?

Can Wging answer this?

CVs have no game play function. WG keeps them in the game to generate arbitrary damage to keep games shorter and get players back to port and in the queue more rapidly. They are so obsessed with queue times and making sure that CVs are in every match that they would rather create a degraded playing environment and drive players to stop spending or to leave the game entirely than get rid of CVs. It's sad. Was an excellent game before the idiotic ReBork.

You might notice that WG surveys never ask direct, detailed questions about CVs. This is because they already know what answers they would get, and they just. don't. care. 

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[MASSD]
Members
500 posts
29,342 battles
2 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

To expose agenda whiners and generate maximum salt among the lowest skill DD mains who have one playstyle and won't alter it even a little when carriers are present.

Other than that, it has always been to add aspects of the aerial elements of naval warfare that not only existed in the era of these ships in this game but dominated it.

then why screw with everybody else's AA at the same time ?  limiting AA range to 5.2 K ( down from 7.0 ) in my BB's is a load of crap too . And please don't start trolling with that worthless change your game crap . once that plane spots you  there is NOTHING you can do about it . They continue to send squadron after squadron at you until you are rocketed out or spotted out and blasted by other ships .I suppose I could go to the back with the Bbs and cruisers  and hope our combined AA keeps me from getting killed but I truly doubt that will go over very well with the BBs and cruisers as  we never get a cap and lose . (remember hiding behind an island does not protect you from rocket planes that you can't shoot down  )

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[A-I-M]
[A-I-M]
Members
2,498 posts
20,100 battles
3 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

(excerpted)

You might notice that WG surveys never ask direct, detailed questions about CVs. This is because they already know what answers they would get, and they just. don't. care. 

Glaringly true. 

The most vocal defenders of CVs are sub-.500 players (most of whom now hide their stats) whose winrates are propped up by carriers. The most vocal critics are CV unicums who can point out with server stats and their own replays just how broken the class is. 

Geniune carrier enthusiasts are caught in the middle of this constant crossfire. 

WG has begun nerfing the reworked carriers, which they were stridently against; started limiting MM, which they were hoping to eliminate, and no longer even bother to claim that the rework narrowed the skill gap. The rework is an abject failure except to players who want or need the edge, or want to play an airplane game with live ship targets.  

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,438 posts
8,824 battles

I'm sure revenue was a big driving factor.  They sell tons of premium ships, and I'm sure they weren't selling many premium carriers under the old system because very few people played them higher than about tier 6.

The overall goal of making carriers easier to play (mainly be preventing veteran CV's from completely neutralizing new players with fighter strafing) was successful at making them more popular, and I'm sure this resulted in a revenue boost as a lot of people bought Graf Zepplins and Enterprises and Kagas.

Unfortunately, they never really solved the two critical gameplay problems with carriers, which is the way they upset the concealment/spotting balance between the surface ships (which may not have originally been intended as a huge part of the game balance, but definitely became one over time) and the general lack of counterplay.  (It's just frustrating to be attacked by an enemy that you can't fight back against, can't disengage from, and must rely mainly on automated defenses to protect yourself from.)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,502
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,476 posts
13,838 battles

Goal: get more use out of the sunk costs of all of the models for thr desperately unpopular carrier type. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,512
[RLGN]
Members
13,299 posts
23,188 battles
22 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

You might notice that WG surveys never ask direct, detailed questions about CVs. This is because they already know what answers they would get, and they just. don't. care. 

Actually got one the other day.

SC’d the questions and my answers with the intention of posting them, but never did.

I’ll PM you the SCs if you’re interested in seeing it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[MASSD]
Members
500 posts
29,342 battles
8 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Glaringly true. 

The most vocal defenders of CVs are sub-.500 players (most of whom now hide their stats) whose winrates are propped up by carriers. The most vocal critics are CV unicums who can point out with server stats and their own replays just how broken the class is. 

Geniune carrier enthusiasts are caught in the middle of this constant crossfire. 

WG has begun nerfing the reworked carriers, which they were stridently against; started limiting MM, which they were hoping to eliminate, and no longer even bother to claim that the rework narrowed the skill gap. The rework is an abject failure except to players who want or need the edge, or want to play an airplane game with live ship targets.  

It's not all about the nerfing of the Cvs  They nuked everybody else's AA at the same time . They need to crank up the AA  and dump this respawning plane garbage . If my torpedo tubes or guns get blown up they don't respawn  why should a plane respawn . Let the things get deplaned as was always a possibility .

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
389 posts

Thier attempt to solve the square-peg-thru-round-hole problem.

 

3 years of constant balance adjustments, tweaks, & changes, including one major rework, and WG still is trying to make it fit..

 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[MASSD]
Members
500 posts
29,342 battles

The other issue they have that many people have forgotten about due to the CV fiasco is radar that works thru islands . Radar needs to be line of sight . They said it couldn't be done but they managed to make it work with AA . No more shooting planes down through islands . 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,242
[INTEL]
Members
12,145 posts
33,706 battles
17 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Actually got one the other day.

SC’d the questions and my answers with the intention of posting them, but never did.

I’ll PM you the SCs if you’re interested in seeing it.

Please do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,191
[SQUAD]
Members
2,081 posts
11,917 battles

(file under "if it keeps getting said")

If a CV is going to be in the game and be any fun at all to play, it will be it's very nature be overpowering to most situations it will be in. If a CV is going to *be* or emulate what a CV can do then it will be dominant on the map if operated at all competently. It just is.  They are not fun to play against, as for the most part their is no recourse... no ability to strike back as AA is mostly useless unless bunched up, and getting to a CV is unlikely to happen.  It isn't fun because it is lop-sided, giving the CV all the advantages and non of the risks.  However, someone at WG was bound and determined to have them in the game, so there they are. They were controversial before the change and hated after. It has been over a year and it is still not right, despite all sorts of "efforts" to adapt.

As is mentioned above, there are other issues that many feel "break the game"... but it is a "play it or leave it" situation... and then there are subs... sigh.

 

Edited by Elo_J_Fudpucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,733
[SIDE]
Members
3,600 posts
56 minutes ago, Capt_Q_Sparrow said:

then why screw with everybody else's AA at the same time ?  limiting AA range to 5.2 K ( down from 7.0 ) in my BB's is a load of crap too . And please don't start trolling with that worthless change your game crap . once that plane spots you  there is NOTHING you can do about it . They continue to send squadron after squadron at you until you are rocketed out or spotted out and blasted by other ships .I suppose I could go to the back with the Bbs and cruisers  and hope our combined AA keeps me from getting killed but I truly doubt that will go over very well with the BBs and cruisers as  we never get a cap and lose . (remember hiding behind an island does not protect you from rocket planes that you can't shoot down  )

No. I'm not trolling at all. Just laying it out. Also, I agree with you on the AA. It should be vastly more effective than it currently is, at least on ships with marginal to poor AA. Rocket planes are too strong and should be limited to single strikes. I think the solution to this is to build in a Defensive AA consumable on all ships under 75 rated AA. 

Edited by thebigblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[LOIN]
Supertester
769 posts
2 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said:

To create a more dynamic gaming experience?

To make more revenue?

Can Wging answer this?

There secretly planning world domination:fish_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
378 posts
3,697 battles

Coming from someone who doesn't rabidly hate CVs, some things still deeply bother me:

Rocket planes - like wth is that.

Second point - as someone else mentioned in this thread, it's nice to have historical ships in the historical time frame. True, HOWEVER - in that era, aircraft carriers went after other aircraft carriers with a vengeance. CV on CV battles in WoWs don't happen until one side literally has one ship left afloat.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×