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

Survey: are you in favor of reversing the CV rocket change?

CV Rocket Change  

332 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you in favor of reversing the CV rocket change?

    • Yes, reverse it
      81
    • No, do not reverse it
      214
    • Bacon
      37
  2. 2. Do you think that the CV rocket change made the game better or worse?

    • The change made the game better
      177
    • The change made the game worse
      76
    • Too early to tell
      52
    • Bacon
      27

141 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,667
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,023 posts
10,383 battles

Since the cv rocket change petition thread omitted the survey for whatever reason, I decided to create one.

Let's see what the forum community thinks of that proposal, and of the change itself.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,028
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,593 battles

I will say that, should the data support it, I am ok with the firing delays being shortened.

Just requiring some level of target leading is enough to satisfy me.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,635
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,708 posts
6,760 battles
2 minutes ago, vak_ said:

Since the cv rocket change petition thread omitted the survey for whatever reason, I decided to create one.

Let's see what the forum community thinks of that proposal, and of the change itself.

You left out the vital option of "It is too soon to know as not enough time for the players to adjust and data to be accumulated has passed.", therefor I cannot vote,

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,667
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,023 posts
10,383 battles
5 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You left out the vital option of "It is too soon to know as not enough time for the players to adjust and data to be accumulated has passed.", therefor I cannot vote,

Thank you for pointing that out, added the option.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,860
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
5,173 posts
20,150 battles

I think it will be dialed back a bit. Not back to where it was, but a tweak. That or, the spotting patrol planes may become a little more immune to AA giving team mates more vision to deal with a enemy ship. 

One of the main weapons of a CV is vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
867
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,372 posts
5,527 battles

I'm for the change, but tbh I don't think WG hit the nail just yet. 

Even with the pre-change rockets, the true killer was the constant spotting. I think if WG made it minimap only both anti and pro CVers would be much happier. 

Which is why I am utterly mystified as to why WG rejected this during internal testing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,028
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,593 battles
8 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You left out the vital option of "It is too soon to know as not enough time for the players to adjust and data to be accumulated has passed.", therefor I cannot vote,

I think we already know that it's a decent change, we just don't know if the degree is good, which more data will tell us.

Another reason we need more time is that, judging by how many CV players are saying that rockets are "completely useless", and a certain CV player posting a rant where he shows that he does not understand that the change is really just a simple firing delay, CV players need to understand the basic mechanics, and not be fooled by the graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,667
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,023 posts
10,383 battles
5 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

Even with the pre-change rockets, the true killer was the constant spotting. I think if WG made it minimap only both anti and pro CVers would be much happier.

Same. I'd honestly much rather have the old rockets back, if CVs no longer spotted enemy ships except for on the minimap.

But that would also be akin to an admission that CVs don't actually work with their team at all in random battles, for them it's just a PVE pinata-hitting game.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,403
[-BCO-]
Members
2,940 posts
5,075 battles

Like I said numerous times, spotting by planes I regard as the most problematic featurette of Cv's. That's being said, anything that makes the class more skill based is more than welcomed. However I didn't vote.

Edited by Bandi73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,635
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,708 posts
6,760 battles
14 minutes ago, vak_ said:

Thank you for pointing that out, added the option.

Still can't vote because it is missing from the first section as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,635
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,708 posts
6,760 battles
5 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I think we already know that it's a decent change, we just don't know if the degree is good, which more data will tell us.

Another reason we need more time is that, judging by how many CV players are saying that rockets are "completely useless", and a certain CV player posting a rant where he shows that he does not understand that the change is really just a simple firing delay, CV players need to understand the basic mechanics, and not be fooled by the graphics.

I agree on the second point in particular.  I've tried over and over to explain that the delay is nothing but leading the target, something gun ships have been doing from the very start and some CV players just can't wrap their heads around the fact that when a gunship clicks their mouse the guns fire instantly whereas when the CV player clicks their mouse the rockets do an animation before firing.  Some players just can't seem to grasp, or don't want to, that the animation is just an animation with no fundamental difference from the animation of shells arcing away to their impact point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,017
[PVE]
Members
7,478 posts
9 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I will say that, should the data support it, I am ok with the firing delays being shortened.

Just requiring some level of target leading is enough to satisfy me.

I suspect this change is in no small part for the introduction of subs.  I think rockets overpreformed grossly against subs in the past, and the increased spotting of DDs that will come with subs is another issue this change is likely meant to address.  I don't think any more changes will happen until after subs are here.  We''ll see, I could end up being wrong.

10 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

Even with the pre-change rockets, the true killer was the constant spotting. I think if WG made it minimap only both anti and pro CVers would be much happier. 

Which is why I am utterly mystified as to why WG rejected this during internal testing.

I'm not surprised.  I'm fairly convinced WG sees concealment as something that works against their goals for the game.  Forget what I think though.  What is the logical reasoning behind WG almost entirely ignoring what most players see as one of, if not the biggest problems with CVs, that is of course their spotting?  Why do you think WG isn't addressing this issue?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
867
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,372 posts
5,527 battles
28 minutes ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

I think it will be dialed back a bit. Not back to where it was, but a tweak.

If there's one thing we know about WG, it's that they like to add more mechanics to fix a problem then to address the actual issue. 

I'm willing to bet if they find that rockets aren't doing as much damage as they would like, then the strafing will do some damage, maybe as compensation for a whiff. 

Edited by PotatoMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[KIA-C]
Members
370 posts
4,954 battles

Coming from someone who enjoys using CVs on occasion, I've always thought rockets were far too easy to use in comparison to the other plane types. 

However, the present nerf felt like it was too heavy handed and inspecific.  Due to the delay, if a dd turns off their aa until the last moment it makes it nearly impossible to see the target you are aiming at until you fly over them let alone leading the target.

It also unfortunately didn't affect all CV lines equally.  Most Japanese CVs feel horrible after the change due to already having weak AP dive-bombers.  Take away the rockets on them and now they only have 1 good plane type. 

Meanwhile the American CVs feel much better because the HE dive-bombers can still fill the role of a dd hunter while still having decent torpedoes, giving them 2 good plane types.

The change was a step in the right direction, but I wish there was an option to include a ''happy medium" between pre-nerf and post-nerf.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,028
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,593 battles
Just now, Slimeball91 said:

I'm fairly convinced WG sees concealment as something that works against their goals for the game. 

 

To be fair, I wonder how much of that is Lesta, and how much is WG, whose "trademark" is concealment/spotting mechanics being a major feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,667
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,023 posts
10,383 battles
12 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Still can't vote because it is missing from the first section as well.

There you go :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,110
[KWF]
Members
6,584 posts
7,205 battles

Who knows, it's not as if we got any real power over this. Maplesyrup shows a small reduction in CV players so I guess if there's any huge drop they might reconsider.

What's worrying is that if this change is done with DDs being better able to deal with subs, the teams will remain at a 12v12 (imo pretty bad as a move).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,495
[BONKS]
Members
3,094 posts
52 battles

Imo a couple few adjustments could be made, but the change overall is fine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,608 posts
2,011 battles

Too early for me to tell. I definitely don't want Wargaming to reverse it while my gaming set is down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
674 posts
18,025 battles

I think the change to the Zeppelin attack angle should be rolled back (or a dispersion buff added).

 

But the main rocket changes seem fine? I haven’t played a lot of games with them from either side, but I am fine with the proposed goal of making the interaction more skill based.

(But I voted bacon, since that’s what I really want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
194
[FEB-M]
Members
211 posts
6,330 battles

I think this is an intermediary step that MUST be improved in 3 topics:

  1. AIM LOCK / RAILS IN THE AIR - this is the most stupid implementation ever!!! Why only "rocket planes" can't AIM? All other airplane types allow the player to correct the aim, even if slower than desired. But somehow, when you click to attack, now your planes enter a RAILWAY IN SKY and get stuck until firing.
    • SOLUTION: Reduce aim speed, but get rid of "air rails", and allow pilots to continue aiming all the way.
    • Better SOLUTION from @Skpstr Transfer the "aim lock time"  FROM the airplanes, TO the Rockets, as rocket's travel time!
      This way we'll have a realistic implementation of same "shoot-delay-hit", but without freezing airplanes in the air, and improving the immersion!
  2. HUGE VARIATION OF AIM LOCK TIME: It varies from less than 2sec to over 6sec the "aim lock" time. That's too much.
    • Better solution: Transfer the "aim lock time"  FROM the airplanes, TO the Rockets, as rocket's travel time! Planes shoot from far or closer, resulting in timing variation in a rational, realistic way.
  3. NO DAMAGE FROM MG: Machineguns are meant to do damage. Now they are useless, when the attacked ship sees it, it's already to late to turn, and from airplanes you have the reticle.
    • SOLUTION: Add minor damage to MG fire.

A better solution, as I proposed before, would be to increase horizontal dispersion for rockets, so FEWER ROCKETS HIT DDs, but same amount as before would hit larger targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,780
[CLUMP]
Members
2,051 posts
2,424 battles

Is that fear I am sensing :Smile_popcorn:

RRGttbB.gif

Oh yes how the tables have turn :fish_cute_2:

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
683
[NMKJT]
Members
3,325 posts
8,518 battles
1 hour ago, PotatoMD said:

I'm for the change, but tbh I don't think WG hit the nail just yet. 

Even with the pre-change rockets, the true killer was the constant spotting. I think if WG made it minimap only both anti and pro CVers would be much happier. 

I'd be ok with them having the old rockets back if that happened, plus 'no indicator for planes being spotted' and maybe halving air concealment as well. Aka making it so the CV has to work with its team and can no longer be a lone shark. If WG wants CVs to have all the damage roles ok, they should completely gut the spotting unless the CV dedicates himself to spotting. Casual air spotting makes these 12v12 trashy games even trashier, as it heightens the ease of focus fire from rear line positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,780
[CLUMP]
Members
2,051 posts
2,424 battles
4 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

I'd be ok with them having the old rockets back if that happened, plus 'no indicator for planes being spotted' and maybe halving air concealment as well. Aka making it so the CV has to work with its team and can no longer be a lone shark. If WG wants CVs to have all the damage roles ok, they should completely gut the spotting unless the CV dedicates himself to spotting. Casual air spotting makes these 12v12 trashy games even trashier, as it heightens the ease of focus fire from rear line positions.

You know this game might have unrealistic things but them removing air spotting will never happen that is ridiculous sorry to burst your bubble :Smile_hiding: You are asking for an entire class to be immune to spotting from another class that even a worse nerf than rocket one when a CV is by itself what is it going to do fight an invisible enemy or something :fish_palm:

Edited by LastRemnant
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×