Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
warheart1992

CV Rework, 2 years on.

64 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,026
[KWF]
Members
5,584 posts
6,878 battles

It's been two years since update 0.8.0, or as it's also known, just CV rework. Thought it would be interesting to take a look two years back down the memory lane. More specifically, the goals and motivations behind the rework as stated by WG itself, the huge change that was undertaken, and the outcome that I guess is still ongoing.  I won't be including my own opinion on the rework that much; not here to pass judgement or offend anyone. Just showing a few milestones on how the rework came to be, up until 0.8.0 was released to the masses.

Things started near fall of 2018; CVs were a major talking point in general, and there was some talk on reworking them into something more popular, player friendly, and not that disconnected from surface combat. Then this announcement comes in:

https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-cv-rework-announced/

Quote

Reasons and goals of changes

Aircraft Carriers in World of Warships were always different from any other ship class because of their specific game control. It was needed to bring diversity to the game and to highlight their unique role in a battle and real life. However, over time, it had become clear that their exceptional role causes several issues such as:
  • High difficulty in mastering and because of it – an excessive gap between experienced players and beginners who may be excluded from a battle without a chance to do something about it.
  • As a result, low class popularity and no stable presence in battles.
  • Nevertheless, there was an excessive impact on a battle because of the several reasons:
    • possibility of scouting using several squadrons interfering with destroyers, detecting the enemy team and actually blocking initiatives and unexpected maneuvers.
    • possibility of dealing critical damage to almost any target in a short period of time, especially on high levels;
  • Combination of aircraft carriers’ features and AA defense working mechanics resulted in a situation where it’s impossible to shoot airplanes down (for example, average destroyer chased by a squadron) or quite the opposite case where planes can be destroyed immediately (Des Moines with full AA defense set). Shooting down several planes has almost no impact on a game. Moreover, confrontation between an aircraft carrier and its target comes down to “AA Defense Fire” activation and attempts to maneuver which are easy to counter using several squadrons.
  • Counterintuitive difference between automatic and manual attack which work very differently, and doesn’t imply any smooth skill growth suggesting a very “high bar” instead.
  • The main gameplay doesn’t look attractive to most of the players because its main feature is managing several squadrons with a top down, ‘bird’s eye’ view . In other words, the gameplay is “cut off” from a main battle and fixed on micromanagement.
  • Moreover, there is a big question when it comes to “AA defense ships” and “AA defense sets”: if there are not enough aircraft carriers and its playerbase isn’t stable, why spend your modernizations, skill points and consumables on AA defense.
These issues had been considered in different periods of time due to your feedback, and we tried to find a solution using partial changes and upgrades. However, at some point it turned out that we needed some integrated approach and “rebooting” the whole class using an innovative concept which will consider all initial issues and challenges. That’s what we would like to achieve:
  • Adequate “complexity curve” of aircraft carriers which implies smooth skill growth;
  • Enjoyable gameplay that will:
    • Be attractive for most of the players;
    • Give more space for resourcefulness of aircraft carrier and its targets as well;
  • Create a balanced, integrated class that will enrich the game without ruining it for others;
  • Increase aircraft carriers’ popularity and enhance AA defense ships.

Main differences of the new concept

The Squadron is still the main combat unit for aircraft carrier players, the only difference is that you control only one at a time. This decision will solve several issues like excessive spotting and damage potential, and too much micromanagement that can be mastered only by a minority of players. This raises the question: will it be entertaining to play with only one squadron?” The answer is positive here because now it’s a direct squadron’s control:
  • In our new concept you can control your squadron directly using WASD keys or mouse. There are options for speeding up and slowing down (forcing engines or shifting to planning) when turning.
  • Player will maneuver among explosions of AA defenses shells while attacking a ship and choose the right moment and direction to launch torpedoes, bombs or rockets (more info about that below);
  • An attacks success will depend on the player’s skill. The player will have the ability to plan their moves and due to that increase the attacks efficiency. For instance, if you plan and start an attack run with torpedo bombers in advance, the torpedo spread will be narrower, in contrast to a rushed attack, when your target is too close, then the spread will be wider;
  • Player uses only several planes instead of a whole squadron while conducting an attack. Upon attack completion, the aircraft that have expended their payloads go back to the aircraft carrier automatically. This allows players to have several attacks using one squadron, select different targets or eliminate one target with several attacks.
  • When a squadron is used up, another selected one takes off instantly and player will shift between them without any extra waiting;
  • All squadrons are focused on damaging ships: torpedo bombers, bombers are well known among our players, but we plan to add attack planes equipped with aircraft rockets;
  • Fighters will become an ability: player will be able to call them on a squadron’s position and after some time they will come for patrolling. Spotting enemies’ planes they will try to draw them into battle and destroy them. Fighters’ direct control hasn’t been planned because we would like you to focus your attention on ships attack not other planes.
  • Aircraft Carriers can no longer become ‘de-planed’ and redundant. According to our new concept, your reserve of planes is unlimited. However, throwing them into combat thoughtlessly and recklessly will increase the preparation time for the next flight.

AA defense workings

After adding new gameplay and direct control of a single squadron, we also wanted to implement improvements to the operation of AA defense. Current mechanics can just basically identify plane loss in a kill zone with some probability. Our new concept has some essential differences:
  • Every plane has its own HP, they can be damaged and shot down individually;
  • Planes entering the zone of close range AA defense (consisting of mostly machine guns) will be guaranteed to suffer significant damage.
  • Long and medium range AA defense will aim at planes and automatically fire at them. For the player it will be obvious that some zones of AA defense are better not to fly into. As the players planes fly into those areas, they will be likely to receive some damage.
  • Instead of the previous click on enemy’s squadron (that put priority on it), players will be able to shift between left and right sectors of AA defense. The selected AA defense sector gets a fire intensity increase whilst the other sector sees it decrease. Thus, player can face enemies‘ planes with a hail of fire from one side but the other side will be more vulnerable for the attack; it’s worth mentioning that switching sectors is a very important tactical element because it may take tens of seconds.

People were understandably wary, but at the same time optimistic, as RTS CVs were relatively unpopular as a class with huge gameplay impact, especially at the hands of skilled players. In addition tests were announced for players to see for themselves the way the revamped CVs worked. Of course, there were still concerns as is usual of new things anyway, so in December some more details were given to address some of them in a FAQ.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/cv-rework-faq/2257558527903815/?comment_id=2257606844565650

Quote

Commanders!

 

Today we have some interesting news for you and this series of posts will be very different from most of the news that we usually publish on this page. In the coming posts, we'll tell you about the new aircraft carriers, which you will see the in version 0.8.0. You will be able to read more details in a special series of articles on the official portal.

 

First of all, thanks to all the players that took part in the testing process of aircraft carriers. Your feedback, opinions and bug reports have allowed us to find and fix a lot of bugs and improve some mechanics.

 

New CV will be unbalanced.

 

The problem when you test something in a closed and separate environment, is that you cannot make a large amount of players truly emulate their production server behavior. While beta test is a great place to generate a major improvements list, adjust the priorities and see how the concept works in general, we cannot adjust all aspects: cool-downs, timers and DPS etc for each ship, especially when we talk about fine tuning individual ships versus each other. We will have to spend some time, we estimate approximately 1-2 months, after CV rework release. It's inevitable, but necessary. We're eager to have your feedback and impressions when 0.8.0 is released. We'd like to apologose in advance for any inconvenience that you may experience during this period.

 

Lack of direct CV ship control simultaneously when piloting planes.

 

We've met a popular request to directly control a CV despite autopilot improvements. There are different opinions on that, ranging from "it's crucial for gameplay" to "the lack of it is just dumb". Let's try to break it down:

 

Why do we think it's not really needed for the gameplay?

 

First of all, as players rightfully noticed, the role of CVs in battle is much smaller. The main "unit" under player control is a squadron. This is exactly what we wanted to achieve, as concentrating on the squadron allows us to create more action-packed and more visually epic experience. CV direct control is not needed for the majority of the battle - autopilot can take care of CV positioning. Most typical tasks, from plotting a course to the farthest corner of a map to parking a CV behind an island, can be done via tactical map, and done faster than with direct controls. Most players do exactly this with the current CV on live server, and there is really only one case left uncovered - precise dodging of torpedoes. And that leads us to...

 

What about torpedo dodging?

 

A DD that manages to get to the enemy CV should be rewarded - if a DD player succeeds in pulling this off, he either dedicated a lot of effort to it or a CV was positioned exceptionally poorly. The CV does have a choice to aggressively defend with its squadrons or to abandon plane control and directly control a CV for evasion. We strongly believe that adding opportunities for a CV to maneuver in CQC and still control the planes (and thus, making it harder to destroy in such an engagement) is not good for balance. Just imagine the case - a cruiser caught broadside will most likely be punished by a battleship. A careless battleship could be punished by an ambushing destroyer in the same manner. And a destroyer will surely have a hard time surviving a cruiser encounter at close range. The bottom line is: if a CV is engaged at close range, and without support, there should be a tough choice of either WASD-ing the ship or attacking the attacker.

 

What about immersion?

 

We do understand that the ability to directly control the CV is immersive and helps the player to feel more like a CV commander, as opposed to the squadron commander. The rework is indeed about commanding a squadron. Concentrating on it allows us to make the gameplay more dynamic, more entertaining, and more balanced. With that and what was said above in mind, adding this control just 'for the feels' is not justifiable. We also will be looking into more ways to customize the squadrons both visually and gameplay-wise, so that the reduced focus on the ship is compensated.

 

You think players can't manage two things at the same time?

 

Of course we don't think players are incapable of managing more than two things at one time. Our game is far from easy and that's one of its key aspects. There is a lot of multitasking and awareness involved when we're talking about good players on any class. And we do want CVs to have the same depth, but to have it centred mostly in the squadron - in the place which is the core of the new CV gameplay experience. What we really question here is the value from simultaneous direct control of two separated entities - a CV ship and a squadron - both in terms of game design and attention focus.

 

Сan it change some day?

 

Nothing is set in stone, and the possibility exists. We are not going to close this question now and forever. The point is that the top priority in the CV rework is focussing and improving on something that players will spend most of their time doing - controlling the squadrons and engaging in combat with them. We need to allow some time for tweaking the balance after the rework goes live and for players to familiarize themselves and get stuck into the new gameplay tactics of carriers.

 

Automated consumables concept.
As recently announced, we're going to implement automatic activation of DCP and Fighter squadron on CV ships. We're well aware that some of you find it controversial at best. There are several reasons that has led us to this decision:

 

We observed that players understandably tend to concentrate on their squadrons, and despite all interface prompts and indicators (icons, timer, sound) for, say, fire alarm, many found it very difficult to notice and act upon. Again, it's not like we want to cater to everybody and avoid any punishment for mistakes or lack of awareness. But, please remember that the scope of rework is a shift from RTS to action, and all other classes manage the situation around one unit - the ship.

 

А player in a BB, DD or a cruiser manages the consumables directly and it totally makes sense, because there are meaningful choices, and the ship is the only unit under control. While playing reworked CVs, it's pretty simple - it makes no sense to wait for a second fire, it makes no sense not to deploy a Fighter squadron when in danger, and what's more, the overwhelming majority of gameplay is managing squadrons. BB can use damage control between its salvos, DDs - smoke, cruisers - their support tools, but from CV point of view, we believe, there is almost zero difference between "X happens, I push a button and then don't care" and "X happens, the button is pushed automatically, I don't care".

 

With the right balance settings for fire, flooding and fighter squadron the focus will be fully on the player's controlled planes (and the Squadrons consumables, which are managed manually of course).

 

To sum up, while these mechanics sound unusual, we believe it can help us to shift the attention of a player on this reworked class to the place where the real gameplay is - and this leads us to a very fundamental concern we will address in our next post.

 

Lack of gameplay depth and skill development.

 

To start the discussion on that, we would like you to think: how many battles do you need to play in the BB class to understand shooting mechanics, angling and tanking, damage control, shell choice, torpedo evasion and overall planning? A new BB player will probably start from almost mechanical skill of target prediction. Only after that he will go to deep strategy and understanding of meta. First 10-20 battles on a class is just the beginning. Such concept should work with new carriers, too. We wanted to make CV more accessible in some aspects, but by no means "simple" or "elementary". We have several features of the CV rework that should, by initial design, be discovered and mastered by those who are motivated and want to play them well. The CV rework is massive, and we cannot be 100% sure that every feature will be used as we predicted. Of course when the rework is released, players will find some ways to play the game that we never thought about. And we will have to address that and adjust our design concept. But for now, here's the preliminary list of things that should keep players engaged, while keeping the skill important:

  1. Avoiding long-range AA damage. Long range AA currently takes squadron direction and speed into account every few seconds, while constantly shooting at it. This results in AA explosions "bubbles" in path of a carrier squadron. It's definitely not recommended to fly into these bubbles, as they deal massive damage. Avoiding them is one of the first skills a player can develop, to prevent excessive plane losses, and for that, both steering and throttle controls should be used. Throttle controls also affect turning radius.
  2. Performing attack runs. This is the core gameplay for carrier, and each squadron type has some differences here. However, there are common factors that should be taken into account:
    1. High speed results in less time for target movement prediction, but the squadron spends less time under fire;
    2. There is choice of target, choice of squadron, and even choice of which ship part to target. The last matters, because rockets and bombs interact with armor (and AP bombs have proper ballistics), and torpedoes interact with torpedo protection;
    3. And of course, the general concept is that planning the attack run in advance results in the best spread;
  3. AP bombs. This mechanics was significantly reworked and it's much more complex and interesting now. They used to work similar to AP shells dropped from above at a 90 degree angle, and they basically ignored effective armor. Now they have advanced ballistics and their flight path and angle of impact depends on when you actually release them. They can even bounce against armor! When dive bombers start the run, you can release the payload earlier, at higher altitude with more chances of a deck hit. Or you can wait and release them very late when the planes basically stop the dive - and it will be more like a salvo to the broadside. That's like a separate AP shooting mechanic to learn and master!
  4. Managing the squadrons. That's more strategic - losing planes slows down the preparation of the respective squadron times. Each squadron type has independent consumable timers, so smart rotation of plane types will also benefit a player.
  5. Ship positioning. Irrelevant of direct CV control, positioning is still crucial. Being closer to the heat of the battle is more dangerous, but brings with it the advantage of shorter approach and flight times;
  6. Some special tricks. While this part will most likely develop along with meta, we can give you two examples of more advanced tactics which were a thing during the beta:
    1. IJN long shots: having long range and parallel course of torpedos, IJN torpedo bombers can try to perform devastating torpedo volleys from maximum range, taking the least damage (and possibly even staying concealed), but of course such drops will require a lot of good target prediction;
    2. Multiple quick torpedo drops: squadron/wing mechanics allow torpedo bombers launch several volleys in very quick succession. As a result, CV may attempt to provoke an evasive maneuver with the first "bait" drop only to launch the second, better prepared attack. Alternatively, such bait attacks can help a player to expose enemy ship broadside to the allies artillery;
  7. Defensive AA and AA sectors. Defensive AA increases AA damage, while AA sector increased the long-range "bubble" density. We're working on a clear presentation in-game of both AA effects so that a CV player sees what he is dealing with and we hope to see some smart counterplay cases as a result;
  8. Line-of-sight gameplay. With reworked CVs we can finally switch the squadron vision and detection to line of sight. There are quite a few maps with remarkable terrain and LoS works with smoke screens as well, so now there is the opportunity for planes to use terrain as cover either to avoid AA or even to close in undetected and launch a surprise attack. Torpedo bombers are the most interesting in this aspect because they have long attack runs and when they do it, they dive really low, making most of terrain a good cover.
  9. Fighter squadrons. Fighter squadrons are consumables now, and the element of direct fighter control is gone. It is a great tool for team support, and a good player should probably always seek an opportunity to dispatch fighters where needed. Let's not forget that each CV squadron can dispatch fighters independently, so a player may maintain 2 or even 3 active for some time. Fighters also interact with other fighters, adding some CV counter-play element. With the latest updates we're going to show the "danger" zone on minimap to make fighter interaction more clear.
  10. New carriers with new roles. There are possibilities and considerations for the future alternative or completely new CV lines that could see unusual additions to their gameplay. It's too early to confirm anything now, but we do think that slightly more complicated and less "direct" CV gameplay may be introduced with these ships in the future, to keep the game fresh and to bring more variety.

 

So to sum up, We want gameplay to be more accessible and more action packed compared to the current CVs, we indeed took away some RTS-level depth, but we tried to add a lot of places for tactical depth, skill development and smart play in the design. We fully realize that not all of them may work, and some new layers may be discovered, but we really ask you - the players - to consider trying it out and discovering some tricks that you might have missed on Beta.

 

Lack of player feedback influence.
We're very well aware that some of you feel that we're pushing the rework despite the concerns, issues and reservations from the playerbase, and that your feedback is widely disregarded.This is definitely not the case, so please allow us to explain;

  1. The CV rework was done because it requested by the players. Our responsibility was to answer the question "how";
  2. The gameplay you see is not only the result of our work, it is a result of beta test. While not everything that was requested has been achieved/implemented, A number of UI improvements and fixes, as well as changes to gameplay were made based on your feedback:
    1. all initial balance changes
    2. camera settings for all types of plane
    3. plane reserves UI
    4. attack timer addition
    5. changes to the inertia of the plane
    6. improved terrain avoidance system for planes;
  3. We are proceeding with the rework, despite being controversial in some aspects, because as shown below, it gathered good results from beta testing. For example, after the latest test we have the following data:
    1. On average, worldwide: 32,1% liked the rework (for testers with 10+ battles it's naturally higher, 38,3% on average);
    2. 50,8% liked some aspects and disliked other aspects;
    3. Only 13,2% disliked it (and 4,0% had no opinion);
    4. We also cannot confirm that CV rework is enjoyed only by those who are inexperienced: the results from the testers with 1500, 3000, 6000 and 6000+ battles on live server are not that different, and the same is true for those who play carriers on live versus those who don't. However, there is no denying that those who have the most CV battles on live tend to enjoy the rework the least, up to 25% of feedback being fully negative. This is understandable and was covered in CV rework Waterline episode.
    5. These results do show some negativity and challenges to overcome. CV rework is a massive undertaking, and unfortunately, we cannot hope to hit full satisfaction from everyone at launch;

 

We know that we will need to work more on CVs, to tune their balance and to see what issues are a priority, but we firmly believe that the beta period did it's job, and CV path should continue on to the live server, so the whole playerbase experience, passion, skill and feedback contribute to it.

 

Console influence.

 

We also noticed some talks about CV rework being a result of WoWS Legends development and overall "dumbing down the game for the consoles". Please let's be very clear. World of Warships PC is a successful and accomplished game, and this game, along with the players, is the most precious and valuable thing for many of us personally as well as for Wargaming Saint-Petersburg. CV rework gameplay could very well fit in to WoWS Legends, and if it works well, we will be happy to share it with our console colleagues for them to assess it's suitability in what is a separate title and project. But there is zero chance we are risking our main game, our years of work and our loyal audience because of a new title that is being developed. It just does not make sense, CV are not a hard requirement to launch in Legends, and they have their own development timeline.

 

So

 

We implement the CV rework to fix the balance, to make the class more popular in the game, and because you told us it was needed. We will do our best to deliver fresh, enjoyable, engaging gameplay, but we understand that the work is not over with the first release. It will be quite a journey for us along with you. At this moment beta test did its job and to move forward we need to see how you guys play it on live server. We will listen, adjust the priorities for further development, and while it's a challenge, we think its worth it, because ultimately we're responsible for keeping the game fresh and interesting for as many of you as we can. Thank you for your time, attention, feedback, patience and assistance. Good luck and fair seas!

Again however, most people were cautiously optimistic for something fresh and interesting. Of course there was a camp that hated CVs in every form, as well as veteran RTS CV players that considered the time they had devoted to learning the ins and outs of RTS CVs to be completely wasted by such a move. Still, the release date of 0.8.0 was fast approaching, with the patchnotes and set date being announced on January 29th:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-080-takeoff/

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-play/

I won't delve much into the details of what happened during that patch, will just link a video of a battle by Gaishu_Isshoku a week or so after the patch.

....And here we are, two years on....

Any similarity of the thought process behind current, proposed, or future reworks/content additions is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[-KA-]
Members
54 posts
4,604 battles

You're wasting your time and breath. WG is obviously ignoring the cancer menace in this CV Rebork!  

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,026
[KWF]
Members
5,584 posts
6,878 battles
5 minutes ago, CSSAlabama_1 said:

You're wasting your time and breath. WG is obviously ignoring the cancer menace in this CV Rebork!  

While this is mostly a story on how we ended up to 0.8.0 it isn't strictly about CVs, but more about something whose repeat we are reliving under a different name.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
790
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
957 posts
7,568 battles
26 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

It's been two years since update 0.8.0, or as it's also known, just CV rework. Thought it would be interesting to take a look two years back down the memory lane. More specifically, the goals and motivations behind the rework as stated by WG itself, the huge change that was undertaken, and the outcome that I guess is still ongoing.  I won't be including my own opinion on the rework that much; not here to pass judgement or offend anyone. Just showing a few milestones on how the rework came to be, up until 0.8.0 was released to the masses.

Things started near fall of 2018; CVs were a major talking point in general, and there was some talk on reworking them into something more popular, player friendly, and not that disconnected from surface combat. Then this announcement comes in:

https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-cv-rework-announced/

People were understandably wary, but at the same time optimistic, as RTS CVs were relatively unpopular as a class with huge gameplay impact, especially at the hands of skilled players. In addition tests were announced for players to see for themselves the way the revamped CVs worked. Of course, there were still concerns as is usual of new things anyway, so in December some more details were given to address some of them in a FAQ.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/cv-rework-faq/2257558527903815/?comment_id=2257606844565650

Again however, most people were cautiously optimistic for something fresh and interesting. Of course there was a camp that hated CVs in every form, as well as veteran RTS CV players that considered the time they had devoted to learning the ins and outs of RTS CVs to be completely wasted by such a move. Still, the release date of 0.8.0 was fast approaching, with the patchnotes and set date being announced on January 29th:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-080-takeoff/

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-play/

I won't delve much into the details of what happened during that patch, will just link a video of a battle by Gaishu_Isshoku a week or so after the patch.

....And here we are, two years on....

Any similarity of the thought process behind current, proposed, or future reworks/content additions is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated.

You really had me going there. You shared straight information and then you decided to share, NOT JUST A WORLD RECORD, but a WR made only a week after the rework lol.

 

My goodness..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,978
[SIM]
Members
5,741 posts
9,263 battles

It seems that the CV Rework was a rousing success. The class has become far more popular, and the baseline for performance has been improved without leaving it almost trivially easy for unicums to clean up whole teams by themselves. It’s not perfect, but nothing is. 

The fact that some players complain about CVs is largely immaterial. People in this community complain about everything, usually without any facts to back it up other than hurt feelings and a sense of inferiority. 

  • Cool 9
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,026
[KWF]
Members
5,584 posts
6,878 battles
5 minutes ago, Merc_R_Us said:

You really had me going there. You shared straight information and then you decided to share, NOT JUST A WORLD RECORD, but a WR made only a week after the rework lol.

 

My goodness..

More of a show on how 0.8.0 was shortly after release and how it was, pardon my language, absolutely disgusting. I think even the most hardcore CV hater has to admit now is a far cry on from how things were.

It's just that Gaishu's game along with iChase's Flying Shimakaze video really made some waters so it's pretty memorable.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,755
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

2 years on... 

AA still not fixed. 

CVs still not playable for those with any sort of motion sickness issue. 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,895
Members
7,047 posts
21,866 battles

the reality is most of us are afraid to walk away from our investment or fearful that we won't be good at the next game we try or have to spend more time with our spouse.

All are damning propositions and i would prefer to drink more and complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,857
[O7]
Members
5,402 posts
12,407 battles
7 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

It seems that the CV Rework was a rousing success. The class has become far more popular, and the baseline for performance has been improved without leaving it almost trivially easy for unicums to clean up whole teams by themselves. It’s not perfect, but nothing is. 

The fact that some players complain about CVs is largely immaterial. People in this community complain about everything, usually without any facts to back it up other than hurt feelings and a sense of inferiority. 

Ah, yes. Just 'some players', that's all.

Not an overwhelming majority of highly competitive players that keep CVs barred from KotS.

Not WG themselves choosing to keep CVs out of their own tournament done with verizon sponsorship, of which they paid for front page on twitch to advertise the game.

Also not WG suddenly doing 2 Brawls back to back where CVs aren't allowed followed by a tier 9 clan battle session of which they can't participate either.

Not the ongoing complaints I see on the forums every day about CVs by any type of player, irrespective of their ability to convey their reasons for dislike coherently.

Just 'some players'.

Rousing success, yeah.

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 7
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[WOLFC]
Members
2,416 posts
10,773 battles
10 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

More of a show on how 0.8.0 was shortly after release and how it was, pardon my language, absolutely disgusting. I think even the most hardcore CV hater has to admit now is a far cry on from how things were.

:Smile_veryhappy: Are you sure about that? How much time do you spend on this forum?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,571
[RLGN]
Members
15,488 posts
27,194 battles

@warheart1992

Count me among those who; despite adapting and learning to use the CV rework;  still hate the damn thing with a passion.

(The hate keeps me warm at night.)

The thing is, my dislike isn’t centered on the normal complaints; (too much spotting,(which makes me laugh; spotting now is nothing compared to RTS;) attacking through AA, I’m dead in a minute or three, (all of which are familiar to RTS era CV players;) no; I actually generally like carriers. However, understanding my own limitations and the dislike of many of the class, I pretty much only played them in Co-op.

Where my real dislike for the rework centers is on the fact WG took away my Bogue, (two years on, STILL my most played ship,) and what is best described by saying; “I want to play Halsey in the CIC, not Richard Best bombing Akagi to bits.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
2,225 posts
15,894 battles

AND still articles, complaints, reworks, salt, vids, and more complaints, more salt, more .... all because CVs should never have been included in a surface ship combat game.  The basic premise that a strategic unit, the CV, made gunnery surface ships basically obsolete, exceptions included like shore bombardment, based on historical evidence of WWII, somehow can be incorporated into a video game and made to work...well laughable is what I said way back in the day, has not changed.  CVs and land based air made surface ships obsolete...they couldn't defend themselves in real life and they can't really in the game... Remove CVs from the game, a simple and elegant solution.  (and do not add ANOTHER strategic element, subs, to the basic game...cannot be balanced.  Make a dedicated sub game and a CV game and you WG....you  just have solved the issues w randoms, CWs etc, AND win back many players AND sell premiums, because I will not buy a premium sub while it is stuck in randoms...give me convoys and/or a combat surface ship bot with escorts... and you got a winner in a dedicated game mode... listening WG??

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,145
[CLUMP]
Members
1,400 posts
1,871 battles
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

It's been two years since update 0.8.0, or as it's also known, just CV rework. Thought it would be interesting to take a look two years back down the memory lane. More specifically, the goals and motivations behind the rework as stated by WG itself, the huge change that was undertaken, and the outcome that I guess is still ongoing.  I won't be including my own opinion on the rework that much; not here to pass judgement or offend anyone. Just showing a few milestones on how the rework came to be, up until 0.8.0 was released to the masses.

Things started near fall of 2018; CVs were a major talking point in general, and there was some talk on reworking them into something more popular, player friendly, and not that disconnected from surface combat. Then this announcement comes in:

https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-cv-rework-announced/

People were understandably wary, but at the same time optimistic, as RTS CVs were relatively unpopular as a class with huge gameplay impact, especially at the hands of skilled players. In addition tests were announced for players to see for themselves the way the revamped CVs worked. Of course, there were still concerns as is usual of new things anyway, so in December some more details were given to address some of them in a FAQ.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/cv-rework-faq/2257558527903815/?comment_id=2257606844565650

Again however, most people were cautiously optimistic for something fresh and interesting. Of course there was a camp that hated CVs in every form, as well as veteran RTS CV players that considered the time they had devoted to learning the ins and outs of RTS CVs to be completely wasted by such a move. Still, the release date of 0.8.0 was fast approaching, with the patchnotes and set date being announced on January 29th:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-080-takeoff/

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-play/

I won't delve much into the details of what happened during that patch, will just link a video of a battle by Gaishu_Isshoku a week or so after the patch.

....And here we are, two years on....

Any similarity of the thought process behind current, proposed, or future reworks/content additions is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated.

So you use a video from two years to keep pushing this false narrative that CVs are OP :Smile_sceptic: How about tell you everyone how many times wargaming has nerfed said CV on video  and keep pushing this anti CV hatred it :Smile_hiding: Most people seen this will think Hakuryu still like this when in fact it isn't :fish_palm:

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,599
[WOLF1]
Members
6,041 posts

Of all the cherry-picked narratives to pick, you had to pick that one?  

Could you troll any harder?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,133
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,236 posts
12,085 battles
1 hour ago, Pura__Vida said:

All are damning propositions and i would prefer to drink more and complain.

Brilliant Guinness GIFs | Tenor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
2,797 posts
2,658 battles
1 hour ago, LastRemnant said:

So you use a video from two years to keep pushing this false narrative that CVs are OP :Smile_sceptic: How about tell you everyone how many times wargaming has nerfed said CV on video  and keep pushing this anti CV hatred it :Smile_hiding: Most people seen this will think Hakuryu still like this when in fact it isn't :fish_palm:

Just because you suck at playing the game does not make CVs somehow balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,898
[GGWP]
Members
7,308 posts
17,198 battles

Thankfully WG did not screw up and released one of the best designed and well loved changes in the games history. While not ranking as highly as the Naval Training Center or the Puerto Rico Dockyard, players across the game and skill level have universally praised WG s balanced approach to carriers and being able to release them in a way that made them mesh in harmony with the other 3 classes in the game. 

The player base can't wait for them to put the cherry on top and release subs!! 

  • Funny 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,959 posts
43,496 battles
30 minutes ago, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

Just because you suck at playing the game does not make CVs somehow balanced.

Yeah, that record technically does not stand if you based it on updates. I am not surprised that WG has not wiped the record completely like they suspended the AA awards for several updates until they fixed the AA. Just because that video is out, it acts like a propaganda film. But look at the date and check back at the time of the version of the game and the Hakuryu was nerfed even further. 

Records mean nothing when it comes to reworks and updates. 

What you did 4 years ago no longer will work now right? The captain skills rework has changed all of it now.

It is a new era. 

Take it all in. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[--K--]
Supertester
1,445 posts
13,891 battles
2 hours ago, Ruthless4u said:

Legends has the first live test of CV’s starting Monday.

 

should be interesting 

:p I mean I'm sure they'll love them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,860 posts
24,455 battles
3 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

 

CVs still not playable for those with any sort of motion sickness issue. 

 

It was pretty hopeless for quite a while, but I have started playing CV with an eyepatch on the eye that has nystagmus and I have much less vertigo. 

It still provokes vertigo, but I have improved considerably. 

CVs still broken, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[V_V_V]
Members
938 posts
16,785 battles
4 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

...And here we are, two years on....

Any similarity of the thought process behind current, proposed, or future reworks/content additions is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated.

 

02e47694ef0bba6e18561cae18e0d878 (1).jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×