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

Was the CV Rework Worth Losing Old Operations?

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6,778
[RLGN]
Members
19,167 posts
35,208 battles
47 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

Since leaving something in the game which works makes more sense than removing something functional, I would have to assume that there were issues from the CV Rework that caused even non-CV Operations to have problems and require removal.

Oh, beside the entire, ill-conceiver idea, which took a functioning game mechanic and replaced it with something that THREE YEARS LATER could be argued is still broken and causing problems in the game?

0.8.0 was battleaxe surgery.

 REMOVE STRAFE.

REMOVE MANUAL ATTACKS. (Auto attacks were not just 'point-and-click.' They shared the same 'Attack Adjustment Tab' used by Manual Attacks, allowing a player to adjust the direction an attack group came from.)

Apply the damage and spotting changes from the rework, maybe even add rockets.

'Patrol Fighters' already existed, through 'targeting' an allied ship. Air Superiority builds allowed more fighters to target bomber groups and protect allies with.

Done.

You've removed the ability of one carrier to wipe another's air group, and reduced it's ability to instaquack most targets

AA still works. AA ships can still provide protection, and stupid use of airplanes has real impact.

I still fail to see how 'greater accessibility' has been worth the past three years of toxicity and general griefing.

At best, the end result is the same.

A small core of elites; a greater number of generally okay players, and a large number of players ranging from 'just get by' down to 'soggy powdered potatoes.'

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 5
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,722
[HOP4S]
Members
7,013 posts
35,517 battles
26 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I still fail to see how 'greater accessibility' has been worth the past three years of toxicity and general griefing.

They weren't interested in what we saw or even thought...........their goal was income.  And, the best way to make money is to SELL CARRIERS.  End of line.............

Was it worth it?  To our host, they could care less........they counted the coins and want more.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,776
[SIM]
Members
6,307 posts
10,286 battles

New carriers aren’t more toxic than the old RTS CVs (I’d argue that they’re significantly less so), they’re just more present. Before the rework you might see a CV once in ten games, now you see them with regularity.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
825
[VRR]
[VRR]
Members
1,937 posts

Was the CV Rework Worth Losing Old Operations?

 

My answer is a straight up HECK NO!!!!!...

Id rather lose the flat tops than lose so many ops.

I am by no means a good enough CV player. I can still do good runs in ops with my T6 flat tops but I would much rather have our old ops than these "new" STILL broken fan-dangled things.

We were told they would return "SOON" but we all know soon isn't around the corner or even around the block . Its more of across the planet in the middle of the pacific past the singing bush by the dead invisible swordsman shot by Lucky Day.

Road Map ....what Road Map....ROFL LOL!!!!!

 

Edited by Versili
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,598
[PVE]
Members
10,597 posts
32,116 battles
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Oh, beside the entire, ill-conceiver idea, which took a functioning game mechanic and replaced it with something that THREE YEARS LATER could be argued is still broken and causing problems in the game?

0.8.0 was battleaxe surgery.

 REMOVE STRAFE.

REMOVE MANUAL ATTACKS. (Auto attacks were not just 'point-and-click.' They shared the same 'Attack Adjustment Tab' used by Manual Attacks, allowing a player to adjust the direction an attack group came from.)

Apply the damage and spotting changes from the rework, maybe even add rockets.

'Patrol Fighters' already existed, through 'targeting' an allied ship. Air Superiority builds allowed more fighters to target bomber groups and protect allies with.

Done.

You've removed the ability of one carrier to wipe another's air group, and reduced it's ability to instaquack most targets

AA still works. AA ships can still provide protection, and stupid use of airplanes has real impact.

I still fail to see how 'greater accessibility' has been worth the past three years of toxicity and general griefing.

At best, the end result is the same.

A small core of elites; a greater number of generally okay players, and a large number of players ranging from 'just get by' down to 'soggy powdered potatoes.'

As I just explained to @ArIskandir in another thread a day or 2 ago...

They're not "lost"...just still on hiatus until subs are finalized (1 way or the other).

(On phone so can't link it...so to summarize...)

Even before the CV rework subs were announced (Halloween mode was a few months before the CV rework) & it was stated that Ops would be put on hold until sub testing was complete***.

To release all the Ops with just CV adjustments for the CV rework & have to do them all again (including underwater elements) for subs (& not just to include bot subs but to allow players to use subs in the Ops) would have required massive resources that they decided (& stated quite clearly would be the case...all those years ago) was better spent on developing subs.

They were removed because of rework CVs not working in them anymore but they said they wouldn't be concentrating on anything (including the return of Ops) until sub testing was complete.

Everybody missed that caveat & just remembered them being removed because of CVs & when CVs were announced to be "finalized" (when they were reintroduced to CBs & free respecs for them went away) everybody started posting "liar" threads...

& the only official word on them since was Sub Oc saying (I think it was Reddit but I never seen the original...just the aftermath in forums so don't know his exact quote) something along the lines of there's nothing being planned for Ops development in the near future or some such which everybody (that either never read or forgot the original statement about sub development being the only priority) interpreted as "WG doesn't care about Ops".

I think it's safe to say the Ops we used to know (& love) will not be the same when they return & for all intents & purposes they are lost...but they will return eventually & WG hasn't yet actually broken their promise (that 1 at least) because subs are still not finalized.

Not sure what context what you quoted @Ahskance above from...but as he wasn't around back then figured I'd tag him in in case he wasn't aware of any of these details (or if he has anything not under NDA he can add to the subject).

***Edit (timeline check): It wasn't when subs were announced (Halloween time) that the announcement was made but rather when the Ops were announced to be pulled...which was sometime right before the CV rework I believe & I kinda recall it being (briefly mentioned...kinda like an aside comment as opposed to covered in any detail) in one of those 20 minute videos (?Waterline I think they were called?) w/Sub Oc (& Philigula I think his name is) as opposed to a written article.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,655 posts
17,809 battles

I'd argue changing AA from RNG to DPS was a good idea and could've been applied to the RTS mode. But yeah, the removal of ALT attacks (with tightening up auto-drops as compensation) would've been a good way to help balance what a skilled player could do vs what a noob could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,879
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,172 posts
10,845 battles
4 hours ago, SkaerKrow said:

Before the rework you might see a CV once in ten games, now you see them with regularity.

Which is very toxic

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,883
[-BCO-]
Members
3,981 posts
10,994 battles
7 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I still fail to see how 'greater accessibility' has been worth the past three years of toxicity and general griefing.

That would be a very good point if someone would actually care in Petersburg. But....yeeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,067
[ARGSY]
Members
31,105 posts
29,413 battles
5 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

But yeah, the removal of ALT attacks (with tightening up auto-drops as compensation) would've been a good way to help balance what a skilled player could do vs what a noob could do.

Yes and no. The kings and queens of CV had an inborn advantage, which was the ability to multitask and micromanage under pressure. All else being equal, there's nothing the second-string CV players could ever have done to make up for that, and any attempt at massaging RTS would not have solved that problem. It might even have made it worse, since the removal of manual attacks would have relieved the RTS CV unicums of something to fuss with and made their remaining interactions even more lethal.

I shared your opinion in the early days of rework, but I've moved away from it with time. Your way might have kept RTS carrier around for another six to twelve months, but the same underlying problem would still have existed.

In addition, the map and vision influence of a high-tier RTS carrier was disproportionately large, thanks to the ability to leave "spent" attack and fighter groups out as permanent spotters. Even two rework carriers can't do what one RTS ship was capable of once it had managed to deplane its opponent with interceptor strafing.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,846
Members
878 posts
20 battles
8 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Was the CV Rework Worth Losing Old Operations?

Oh yes, absolutely.  The most game breaking thing this game has ever seen, with daylight second and third, was RTS CV's.  The game is infinitely better following the CV rework.

Meanwhile operations are just something you do once or twice and then never enter again - for me anyway, your mileage may vary.  They do get old very fast.

Having said that, they may yet get around to bringing back the missing operations, I'm sure it's somewhere on the WG to do list.

  • Cool 3
  • Haha 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
911 posts
26,017 battles

My personal answer to OP's original question would be a qualified "no".  On balance, I'd prefer there were NO CVs in the game.  But...we're WAY past that.  So, my real answer now is, What's done is done; let's move on, and keep up the pressure on WG to get our ops fixed and back in the game.  And maybe as a reward for our patience, just maybe, you could give us a couple NEW ops?

My fear, here, is that one of the other posters may be correct.  Maybe, now, fixing ops is waiting on fixing submarines.  God, I hope not.  Waiting on a fix to something that, imho, can't really be fixed, would make for a LONG wait.  That said, ops is the one place where I can see subs possibly fitting in.  You could have a convoy escort operation of some sort - friendly escorts defending a convoy against a submarine wolf pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,861
[TDRB]
Members
7,373 posts
16,186 battles
7 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

They're not "lost"...just still on hiatus

They are lost until they return. Upon return we can say they were on hiatus.

Ops players don't care if you use hiatus instead of lost, they want the missing ops returned to the game.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
Members
870 posts
9,489 battles

Nope, nope, and nope. Certainly was not.  Especially Operation Dynamo, which yes had planes, but there were no CVs involved in it at all.  How hard is it, to just leave the AI planes like they were for that Op? I have zero interest in the craptastic flight sim they call CVs now.  They can shove it in a trash folder along with Subs. Both huge wastes of Dev time, that could have been used elsewhere. Like making more operations, or other ship lines being worked on sooner, new maps, new game modes, etc.

I don't hate CVs, I don't care if they are in the game. The current iteration of it, is just a complete joke.

Edited by Valas1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,222
[-TRM-]
Members
5,566 posts

WG removed the old operations. Fine.

WG destroyed the CV RTS system. Not fine. That was the reason that drew me into Wows in the very beginning. all those air groups up working on a mental stack of things that have needs such as teammate requests, overall situationl requirements and application of air superiority by destroying every fighter possessed by the enemy CV. Eventually total air clear skies enemy CV is a paper weight while their team gets whittled to defeat.

THAT was fun.

The sequencing reworks since then show that WG is not interested in fun. So you find fun where possible while being painted into the corner. I am downloading a sailing naval online game called naval battles. Going back to the age of sail online against other humans. That should be fun. Its been out a few years. So I expect to be sealclubbed until I learn it. We'll see.

The summer economic rework talk from the devs recently has me committing to a billion credits to be stockpiled by the holidays at the end of this year. That will show them lolz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,866
[BONKS]
Members
4,828 posts
52 battles
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

The most game breaking thing this game has ever seen, with daylight second and third, was RTS CV's.  The game is infinitely better following the CV rework.

Given that reworked CVs aren't much different, I fail to see how.

In fact the closest analogue we have to reworked CVs were RTS CV pure strike loadouts. You know, the ones that got removed for being too toxic?

 

1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yes and no. The kings and queens of CV had an inborn advantage, which was the ability to multitask and micromanage under pressure. All else being equal, there's nothing the second-string CV players could ever have done to make up for that, and any attempt at massaging RTS would not have solved that problem. It might even have made it worse, since the removal of manual attacks would have relieved the RTS CV unicums of something to fuss with and made their remaining interactions even more lethal.

That CVs required a lot of micromanagement and multitasking is frankly a myth. In fact because the UI was incapable of keeping up with a lot of input a high level of micromanagement was even detrimental to RTS CV play. The APM required to play RTS CVs at a top level was exceedingly low.
Case and point:
https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/106090-carrier-apm/

What made the top RTS CV players successful is not excellent multitasking nor micromanagement ability but a deep understanding of how CV mechanics work, including functions that were never explained and perhaps never intended by WG, how to play them to their potential along with excellent minimap awareness and match reading capability. That's no different to CV play today and in fact almost all skills beyond the basic controls have directly transferred over from RTS to the rework.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,067
[ARGSY]
Members
31,105 posts
29,413 battles
10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

The APM required to play RTS CVs at a top level was exceedingly low.

APM as a pure measure isn't relevant. The relevant factor is how quickly and correctly you can close the OODA loop on multiple inputs from various positions all over the map. THAT'S where I'm arguing the multitasking micromanagement talent comes in. I'll have another look at the relevant book when I find it (The Ace Factor by Mike Spick), but my recollection is that heightened situational awareness is something the best are born with.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,866
[BONKS]
Members
4,828 posts
52 battles
9 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The relevant factor is how quickly and correctly you can close the OODA loop on multiple inputs from various positions all over the map. THAT'S where I'm arguing the multitasking micromanagement talent comes in.

Which, again, is no different from the rework as already elaborated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,067
[ARGSY]
Members
31,105 posts
29,413 battles
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

Which, again, is no different from the rework as already elaborated.

No. I beg to differ. Your influence in rework is in two places - your single active air group and your ship. That's it. That's a whole lot different from before. Even at low tier, that's two fewer tactical elements under your control that have to be handled by a brain under pressure - and I don't just mean in terms of clicking map locations and targets. There are decisions behind even an auto-attack that require thinking time, and humans generally cannot parallel-process. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,067
[ARGSY]
Members
31,105 posts
29,413 battles
1 hour ago, xHeavy said:

Eventually total air clear skies enemy CV is a paper weight while their team gets whittled to defeat.

THAT was fun.

Fun for the side that had deplaned the other side's carrier. Not fun for the side with the paperweight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,866
[BONKS]
Members
4,828 posts
52 battles
3 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

No. I beg to differ. Your influence in rework is in two places - your single active air group and your ship. That's it. That's a whole lot different from before. Even at low tier, that's two fewer tactical elements under your control that have to be handled by a brain under pressure - and I don't just mean in terms of clicking map locations and targets. There are decisions behind even an auto-attack that require thinking time, and humans generally cannot parallel-process. 

The same was true in RTS.

Your fault lies in believing that multiple squadrons = more tactical elements. This was untrue. Squads were grouped together (and if you didn't know could be controlled together) to maximize strike effectiveness and overcome enemy AA, becoming a single entity. This effectively reduced the things you needed to pay attention to to at best 3 elements: Your ship, your strike and your fighters. Since controlling multiple elements at the same time was largely made impossible thanks to the aforementioned atrocious UI, you were then effectively limited to one active element. If you were playing with your fighters, your strike and your ship needed to idle and vice versa. You weren't playing with everything in parallel, you were playing sequentially. That is pretty much no different to nowadays.

  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,167
[PVE]
Members
8,775 posts
10 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

To release all the Ops with just CV adjustments for the CV rework & have to do them all again (including underwater elements) for subs...

Generally, I'm pretty good at connecting the dots, but I missed this one.  It makes sense.  Let's hope WG throws us a bone and brings back an op that wouldn't have subs, Cherry Blossom, or Dynamo.  Otherwise we'll waiting a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
218
[-PVE-]
Members
491 posts
15,886 battles
2 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Oh yes, absolutely.  The most game breaking thing this game has ever seen, with daylight second and third, was RTS CV's.  The game is infinitely better following the CV rework.

Meanwhile operations are just something you do once or twice and then never enter again - for me anyway, your mileage may vary.  They do get old very fast.

Having said that, they may yet get around to bringing back the missing operations, I'm sure it's somewhere on the WG to do list.

You have just 20 battles? Many of us do that many in OPs each week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles

Even without factoring in the loss of old Ops... the CV rework was a disaster....It caused most of my in game friends and myself to quit...I came back a year later, but they never did...at least with broken RTS CVs I would rarely have to play against them...The game is MUCH less enjoyable for me now...and making it fun takes far more effort on my part...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,846
Members
878 posts
20 battles
12 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Given that reworked CVs aren't much different, I fail to see how.

In fact the closest analogue we have to reworked CVs were RTS CV pure strike loadouts. You know, the ones that got removed for being too toxic?

I do see your point if you're talking about overall battle impact.

Where the differences lie is in what they are like to play against. An RTS CV had much slower cycle times, but with much higher alpha, and that meant they could straight up delete a ship at will, and if they were competent then depending on the ship you were in you had little ability to prevent that. They could also cross drop simultaneously, which made avoidance impossible when executed properly, even in DD's. Rework CV's can cross consecutive waves, which is effective even against DD's, but you do get maneuvering time between attacks that give you the ability to mitigate or neuter. 

I know it's been a popular complaint about rework CV's that there is little counter, but there is plenty of scope for maneuvering mitigation, where RTS CV's had less scope for this, and you were much more reliant on AA, which many ships lacked. Rework CV's are much more pleasant to play against because of this.

I think a primary reason that many people preferred playing against RTS CV's were simply that on NA and EU servers they were near non-existent, so in reality they are just saying they prefer battles with no CV's at all.

On SEA server however, we had a wildly different experience. The CV population was many times greater, especially at prime time at higher tiers where the majority of battles had CV's, often in divs with powerful AA ships, that were much more capable at creating no fly zones than in the current AA system. It was the worst this game has ever been, in terms of balance and awful game play. 

There was a reason why the devs decided that the best option for them was to delete the CV class, and create a whole new class with the same name. That is a huge task to take on, with massive consequences for the game, but they felt it was necessary. That's the level of broken that RTS CV's were at. We can argue about how well they succeeded with their goals for the rework, but the necessity of the rework itself was absolute. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[NMKJT]
Members
4,302 posts
9,133 battles
28 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

On SEA server however, we had a wildly different experience. The CV population was many times greater, especially at prime time at higher tiers where the majority of battles had CV's, often in divs with powerful AA ships, that were much more capable at creating no fly zones than in the current AA system. It was the worst this game has ever been, in terms of balance and awful game play. 

That happened on NA at certain times of the day that when fewer people were in MM, especially at high tiers. You'd see fishing divs of CV players with AA ships to go match against permabad boomers in their Midways or whatever, and they'd absolutely destroy the opposing CV and then their team. But it was rare to run into those unless you played at those low population hours, usually late night into early morning.

That said, old system was still better aside from the terrible UI which inhibited easy learning of it. Instead of fixing that and balancing it out a little more, they dumped the whole thing out for the bland system we got now.

28 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

and you were much more reliant on AA, which many ships lacked

After being bombed by a particularly thirsty CV (an Enty), I used to run a variation of AA Roma, which neutered a lot of T8 CV players. The good ones were less affected by it, but I could still make them pay. And Roma's not a ship known for great AA. It was beautiful watching some middling Lex lose too many planes for his taste and then stay away from me for the rest of the match.

The idea that 'only a few ships had good enough AA during RTS' is a fiction. You couldn't absolutely wipe out a CV with an AA spec on middling AA ships, but many would f*** off after they got a taste. The real ships that were screwed were DDs with almost nothing (just like now).

Edited by MnemonScarlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×