Jump to content

Ishiro32

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    2,299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1085

About Ishiro32

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,542 profile views
  1. Ishiro32

    Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    No RTS carrier gameplay was so messed up from design perspective that rework of the whole system was the only possible solution for the balance. Sheer existance of CVs warped everything and WG in their infinite wisdom decided to throw gallons of fuel of this dumpster fire of a class for the last 3-4 years. Even if they wanted to do CVs as RTS, everything would still have had to be reworked. There was just too many issues with current implementation on the most basic levels. Accept it I do think that WG should appease more strategic inclined players by adding more support oriented consumables to the core gameplay they presented recently. So smokescreen planes working similar as they made fighter consumable. Fire fighter planes or other stuff like that. Just make sure that all "consumable" planes are not "summoned" buy called to fly from your CV in a way
  2. Ishiro32

    Dyskusja o reworku CV

    Może... najpierw zobaczmy co z tego się urodzi. To co zaprezentowali było surowe jak cholera i jak ogólnie jestem nastawiony pozytywnie tak nie mam jakoś ogromnego zapału. Jednak jeżeli będzie ok, to pewnie wrócę i parę dywizji to się na pewno zagra (może i na streamie) szczególnie jakby wypuścili to z RN CVkami. Szczególnie że najfajniej grać w grę właśnie wtedy kiedy są duże zmiany i połowa ludzi nie wie co robić. CV-ki w competetive to w ogóle był cyrk na kółkach. Naprawdę nie rozumiem jak ktoś mógł się tym jarać na tyle by grać w każdym turnieju dla swojej drużyny. Taki Farah to np. wydaje mi się że miał syndrom sztokholmski, tak go wszyscy uwielbiali za jego competetive grę, że chłopak wmówił sobie że to lubi. Obiektywnie był to po prostu rak i strata czasu.
  3. Ishiro32

    Dyskusja o reworku CV

    To akurat jeden z pozytywów całej sytuacji. Wiesz jak nudna była ta klasa od pewnego momentu? Autentycznie nie było sensu się starać jak się osiągnęło pewien poziom. Szczególnie że WG zastosowało na klasie bardzo ciekawy sposób model developmentu, mianowicie "Skoro już leży martwe, to niech mięso gnije".
  4. Added section with ideas to main post which is also visible below: What I would love to see other than obvious stuff like more information about AAA and good balance with numbers is for development team to maybe build a small bridge between old guard and the New CVs. The core is single screen and action based, but I think there is still a chance to appeal somewhat to the old players that wanted to think about a game in more strategic way. In The Potential section I mentioned how can we add more consumables to the planes. The idea of flying around and giving orders to the different type of planes like it is the case with fighters is appealing. I don't think it should be too overbearing on the players, but if we could pick couple of support planes that we could order around as consumable on high cooldown it would go a long way to give players this feeling of being in control without actually stressing them out or providing them with too much raw power. We could have: Fighter consumable Smokescreen consumable Firefighter plane consumable Mine setup consumable (easily shot down by enemy AAA so has to be set up in advance) Attackplane consumable (only rockets and DBs with very low damage) Not all of them need to be available all the time, but if we were forced to have fighters and selection of two picked ones would give CV players 3 consumables with a lot of support capabilities. With very long cooldowns they shouldn't be too OP Controlling CV is a must, otherwise no one will play aggresively. You need precision in case you need to dodge torps or shots. I would like to see toggable cinematic camera in the corner of the screen after TB drops. I mentioned that I worry that from first person perspective no one will have time to properly watch the torps swimming which is a huge part of excitement tied to this type of drop. It can be toggable in options if someone doesn't want it. I am not sure if there is place in UI for such feature, but it could also be used for BBs and gunfire if there was a place for it. So in general... You kind of betrayed people who love strategy, throw us a bone and give us some interesting tools to play around. I do think if you base your whole class around damage, class which has this finger of god design, it will be kind of annoying to balance. I think you should push it still into more of a toolbox approach. If I don't see any opening I will fly to the flank and drop some mines or setup smokescreen for someone. Not too much so they think about 10 different cooldowns or elements and distract themselves from the core, but healthy dose of variety. Fact is also that if you will need to scale down damage of carriers, support capabilities are perfect counterbalance to still keep them relevant. Pure damage I think will be a mistake. The AA is indeed big mystery right now. I do hope they plan to normalize how extreme it is. Without adressing this, I don't think CVs will work even with this really good core. Kind of why I would propose for WG to give new CVs some more strategy-like consumables. Not overbearing people with them, but throw old players a bone. I think people still want to play CVs mainly for the "grand strategy" fantasy and not dive bombers cutting through dakadaka.
  5. What I most wanted to talk about is the flow of the new concept in the flow section. So in general to analyse why I think this type of gameplay should be universaly liked. The other big part is that when you analyse the core of the presentation you see that they try to appease pilot fantasy with it and this creates dichotomy with the carrier fantasy those ships supposed to fulfill. That is why they will not be loved and by some they will be hated as it is betreyal of the concept. Rest is fluff pretty much. I actually just spoilered all the stuff I don't consider essential to make it more readable. I agree that it was a bit of a incoherent ramble, but I am not playing anymore so I did not want to really spend a lot of time on writing proper essay. Oh CVs most likely will still be hated by people who are attacked by them. Damage over time approach is not the best for the victim. Not to mention they still retained pretty much manual drop capabilities and finger of god philosophy which was annoying so many people ^^. Still this is more of a balance thing and if the core gameplay loop is as enjoyable as I think it is... You should be able to find middle ground. There is also one big element in the current concept. The replenishment of forces happens only after you use all attacks. So you can't attack someone, leave some forces in the air around to wait for repair and in the meantime recover attack planes you just used. If you wait for someone to repair, you are pretty much 100% spending your time on just that. I think this might limit how oppresive DOT approach is, but it is defenetily something to look out for if I were a dev. The big thing is though, that even if you make CVs slightly underpowered, if the core gameplay loop is well designed, the population still will be there. Similarly if core loop is broken, even if the class is OP, it will not be very popular (like CVs were even at its prime OPness) I am THE avatar fag of this forum.
  6. Ishiro32

    Dyskusja o reworku CV

    Też bym sprzedał, gdyby ktokolwiek kupił to badziwie. -Hej, może chcesz kupić konto -A co masz? -CV-ki, CV-ki i premium CV-ki -moje kondolencje Słaby biznes, Panie A tak na bardziej poważnie i na temat A konkretnie fragment As we discussed in the earlier sections the fantasy that WG tries to fulfill here is closer to the one of the pilot. I just want to say that I feel this is kind of sad. Old CV players started game because they were in love with the ships themselves and the strategic presence they commanded. Old guy sitting with a map trying to make sense out of the all the intel he has to make a good decision. Decisions that will bear fruits after quite a while. While I can agree that this concept of rework is good and proper, there is some dichotomy here. Fans of the airplanes have better games to anwser their needs and I do not think there is many CV players that wanted to see this particular fantasy. As a result I do not believe many people will love the class even though more people will like it in general.
  7. Ishiro32

    Dyskusja o reworku CV

  8. Added section on fighters. I actually like the idea of them as consumable and it is a neat solution.
  9. Hello, as one of the people who was quite vocal on this forum regarding the need for CV reworks for years I feel the need to write something regarding todays stream. First things first What I find important during the stream was that WG focused their presentation on showcasing the core gameplay loop. Plenty of mechanics, quirks and most importantly statistics are not there. My feedback similarly will be limited to this core loop. Rest of the elements like stats or specific mechanics will be in general ignored. So lets start. The Core As of this moment, WG decided to deemphasize the strategic layer of the CV gameplay and focus almost all player attention on the screen. For the purpose of the gameplay we have one very fast and nimble unit that can perform offensive action couple of time before reseting itself to the starting position on the carrier. Attacks are performed by entering "attack mode" in which aiming indicator is shown. Attack mode is limited by time. Early during the attack mode time, the accuracy of a drop is low. With time it increases. Aiming and abillity to predict movement stays the same as it is right now, as the only thing changed is the controls and camera point of view. Principles themselves stay the same. This is very promissing concept for a core. As of this moment the best thing and feeling carriers have is the mindgames between target and cv skipper. Considering that aiming principles stayed the same, this feeling of predicting enemy movement is safe. This concept also has proper tension flow and can be expanded further. The Flow Tension flow is just emotional state of the player during every step of the game flow. For almost all of the media it can be boiled down to, Start high Slow down Increase tension above initial point, Climax and slow down below earlier slow down. So in general you want to have good mixup of slowing down and building up tension for the climax to feel good. Slowing down emphasises the highs and other way around. With that in mind lets have a look at the flow of the core on the very micro level. Lets focus on just the attack. So we have target and we fly towards it. One of the big elements in the concept is fact that operating plane is manual and you have to press button to enter time limited attack mode. This pressing attack mode button is your initial increase of tension. You commit yourself to something. It is very short moment, but after clicking it you are engaged. The domino started. Planes fly down for torpedo bombers/fly up for dive bombers. You observe initial animation which is a typical slowdown. You have no big control as of this moment and initial spike of decision making mellows down. Tension rises through the dakadakadaka all around you. Considering you also have abillity to minimize your damage by dodging you are kept on your toes while you approach to the source of bad dakadaka. Here visual aspect is really important as you want for the player to feel the excitment of diving into a gunfire. This here is a fantasy those CVs want to fulfill. The tension rises way above initial decision making. Then you press a drop button and for the DBs and Short torpedo runs you get your reward. Planes fly away and tension resets only for the circle to restart. For long TB drops the tension drops down after attack starts, but it isn't supposed to be end. You observe planes flying back and going high in the air increasing feeling of safety. Then you observer your torps swimming in water. If your prediction was correct, or wasn't. Then you have your long drop TB climax on hit. This is very good loop if properly supported visually. Additionally it is important that this concept focuses on this loop, as even with one squadron you will experience this loop fully for at least couple of times, before your planes will have to reload. This is much better than right now in which game is focused on few attacks long time inbetween each other with high cost of failure. Proposed concept is focusing on many attack with short times inbetween each other with low cost of failure (no deplane). My only concern with it is that for Long Drops people might miss the buildup of the torps swimming in water and hitting the target, because they will be too focused on their own survival. After attack you kind of want to run away and not marvel at your drop. Rockets themselves also did not look particularly exciting, they flew flat and their hits just didn't have that oomf. In general though this section is the longest because damn... This flow is fine as f.ck The Strategy The AA The Fantasy As we discussed in the earlier sections the fantasy that WG tries to fulfill here is closer to the one of the pilot. I just want to say that I feel this is kind of sad. Old CV players started game because they were in love with the ships themselves and the strategic presence they commanded. Old guy sitting with a map trying to make sense out of the all the intel he has to make a good decision. Decisions that will bear fruits after quite a while. While I can agree that this concept of rework is good and proper, there is some dichotomy here. Fans of the airplanes have better games to anwser their needs and I do not think there is many CV players that wanted to see this particular fantasy. As a result I do not believe many people will love the class even though more people will like it in general. The Potential Edit. The Fighters Edit2. The Ideas for developers The Reaction of mine In general I must commend WG dev for actually doing some proper work. Earlier work of WG on the class was straight up embarassing and many of the class problems were selfinflicted. This one at least looks like properly thought up. I find it funny that idea of playing from the point of view of planes is something I actually already was playing around in games with bots way back. You can try doing it on your own, the camera is garbage and you fight with everything just to stay in that view, but if I was trying to do it on my own years back it means that there is some inherit curiousity in this approach. The big draws to this idea really is the visual aspect (so something WG can deliver). I do have a lot of the concerns regarding specific things like, if I want to play my carrier aggresively I need a good quick way to control it in a situation when it is in danger. The tactical map is absolutely not good enough and never will be good enough! So unless WG wants for people to play very defensively with their carrier, this has to be adresssed. In general though, just because of how I like the main flow of the core loop. I will play this, I will come back to the game to try it. It looks proper, not something I will love, but concept of the fast response support attacker that has to have amazing map awarness. Might be fun, but I just kind of wished they went with the old guy with a map fantasy, the deep strategy layer. Looks fun though tldr; What I most wanted to talk about is the flow of the new concept in the flow section. So in general to analyse why I think this type of gameplay should be universaly liked. The other big part is that when you analyse the core of the presentation you see that they try to appease pilot fantasy with it and this creates dichotomy with the carrier fantasy those ships supposed to fulfill. That is why they will not be loved and by some they will be hated as it is betreyal of the concept.
  10. Ishiro32

    2018 - Year of the CV

    Ahhhh... Muzyczka zapuszczona na loopie, jedzenie zamówione... Miło 1. Nikt nigdy nie twierdził, że jestem biblią lotniskowców i znam wszystkie odpowiedzi. Jednak rolą dewelopera jest słuchanie feedbacku graczy. Nie oznacza to oczywiście robienie wszystkiego co pragnie community ponieważ gracze często nie potrafią dobrze zdefiniować faktycznych problemów. Bardzo często ludzie widzą pewien element, rzuca im się w oczy, narzekają na niego, a później się okazuje iż powód tych uczuć leżał gdzie indziej (np. w dziwnym bugu UI). Rolą dewelopera jest przetłumaczenie tego co ludzie mówią, na to co faktycznie czują i co ich boli. Ostatecznie rzecz ujmując słuchanie społeczności w tym mnie, jest obowiązkiem dobrego dewelopera. Może i nie prawnym, chociaż zapewne w ich umowach może być o tym wzmianka... kto wie. 2. Ten argument uważam za wyjątkowo niebezpieczny i zalecam nie używanie go w przyszłości. Nie muszę się znać na hydraulice by stwierdzić iż brak wody z kranu po wizycie profesjonalisty oznacza swego rodzaju porażkę. Owszem moja krytyka sytuacji będzie zależna od mojej wiedzy w dziedzinie,. Jednak zauważ o czym pisałem wyżej, odpowiednio zinterpretowany feedback jest najcenniejszą możliwą informacją dla Twórcy. Uczucia każdego gracza są poprawne i ważne. Część z nich wymaga po prostu więcej pracy by stała się użyteczna. Dodatkowe pewne problemy są bardziej widoczne jak nie masz wielkiego doświadczenie. Pryzmat eksperta jest jednym z wielu w końcu. Jak wspomniał "nie Azell" miałem krótki romans z SuperTestami, a także hobbystycznie programuje i czytam książki o tematyce designu. Nigdy nie zbijaj czyiś argumentów tak jak to zrobiłeś, pokazuje to brak szacunku to poprawnych i potencjalnie wartościowych przemyśleń. 3. Owszem mam ego rozrośnięte na tyle by móc stwierdzić iż obecny stan lotnisk jest efektem partactwa. Czy to jest kwestia braku umiejętności, słabej organizacji pracy, alokacji surowców czy zwykłej niechęci to zagadka sama w sobie, którą WG na pewno sobie przeanalizuje wewnętrznie. Mógłbym podyskutować o poszczególnych decyzjach i jak część z nich rozpada się po najbardziej pobieżnej analizie, lecz znacznie silniejszym argumentem jest efekt. Co komu po słowach jak mamy czyny. Wargaming po paru latach developerki zdecydowało się nie uwzględniać całej klasy w długo oczekiwanych Clan Battles. Powód był jasny, lotniskowce nie nadają się do gry i WG samo przedłożyło ten argument. Nie musimy mówić tu o opiniach czy krytyce, jeżeli po paru latach pracy coś nad czym pracowałeś jest niezdatne do użytku to oznacza ogromną porażkę. Oskarżenie o partactwo jest wypracowane na przestrzeni lat. 4. Darmowa to ta gra jest tylko z wierzchu. I czemu nie domagać się lepszego produktu? Jesteś klientem, masz prawo wymagać, a także masz prawo zaprzestać wspierania firmy jeżeli nie tworzy produktu dla Ciebie. Ja wymagam żeby lotniskowce były przyjemne do gry, by stawiały przede mną wyzwania, chce walczyć z innymi na równych warunkach by poczuć satysfakcję wygrywając. Jeżeli tego nie dostanę to nie będę grał w tą grę. Co WG z tym zrobi to ich sprawa, lecz wymagania klienta to norma i znowu to obraca się do punktu pierwszego, czyli do faktu iż każda opinia jest wartościowa. Powiem Ci tak... Mam historię z lotniskami w tej grze. Rozmawiałem z naprawdę toną ludzi na temat tej klasy, od haterów, poprzez nowicjuszy, skllzorów, supertesterów, a także z pracownikami WG. Nie ukrywam, że w dużej mierze obecnie czuje jedynie frustrację i mój brak wiary w rework jest w dużej mierze podyktowany doświadczeniem. Nie gram już i moja czara goryczy przelała się po zlikwidowaniu manualnego drop-u na niskich tierach. Moja feedback kiedy zmiana została zapowiedziana możesz odnaleźć poniżej. Po angielsku rozprawka https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/76538-manual-drop-and-063-–-experienced-cv-player-feedback/?page=1 Moja opinia na temat WG jest wynikiem lat analizy i dyskusji, zinterpretuj ją dowolnie. Jeżeli nie mam racji to normalnie bym zachęcił do dyskusji, bo starcie opinii jest potrzebne by dojść do prawdy. Teraz jednak to byłoby za dużo zachodu pisać o tym wszystkim, nie gram w końcu. I tak ten post wyszedł strasznie duży... Jeżeli się mylę i WG zrobi szalenie dobry rework, to super. Sukces i czyn będzie najlepszym kontrargumentem. Oceniajmy jednak teraźniejszość i faktyczny stan... był on i jest opłakany. Cest la vie
  11. Ishiro32

    2018 - Year of the CV

    @Arralos Twój post jest ciekawy, bo mniemam że część społeczności podziela Twoje zdanie o mojej opinii. Miło mi będzie więc odpowiedzieć na niego. Jednak to wieczorem po pracy. I tak, moje ego nie mieści się na tym forum, tym też rzadko tu już pisuje.
  12. Ishiro32

    2018 - Year of the CV

    Ehhh... Te żarty były śmieszne przez pierwsze dwa lata. Lotniska są po prostu źle zaimplementowane i tyle. Swego czasu robiłem tonę analiz związanych z tą klasą i mogę powiedzieć dwie rzeczy: Po pierwsze wszelkie zmiany które teraz się dzieją z klasą, są w dużej mierze bezwartościowe. Problemy klasy leżą praktycznie na poziomie podstawowej koncepcji, co oznacza że by to naprawić trzeba zacząć praktycznie z białą kartką. Po drugie zespół deweloperski w przeciągu całego cyklu życia tej klasy od bety po dzień dzisiejszy okazywał swoją niekompetencję lub/i brak zainteresowania lotniskami. Otwarcie antagonizując graczy, ignorując ich opinie, feedback. Wszelkie zmiany były wprowadzane w ślimaczym tempie i często były to najbardziej prymitywne i tanie rozwiązania. Mógłbym mówić godzinami na ten temat. Patrząc na historię nie uważam by rework miał duże szansę na długotrwały sukces. I jak kogoś interesuje co jest z klasą nie tak, to polecam zacząć od odpowiedzenia sobie na pytanie "Jaką fantazję ma granie lotniskami spełniać i jak gra tą fantazję próbuje zrealizować". Następnie weźcie pod lupę każdy element lotniska i spojrzyjcie na niego przez pryzmat tej fantazji. Ja osobiście znajduję w tym momencie mnóstwo dychotomii. Taka zabawa... Chciałbym jeszcze naprostować jeden mit, skoro już drops tutaj wiedzę tajemną sprzedawał za darmo. Mit: Lotniska są trudne do gry - Lotniska są trudne do nauki gry ponieważ gra niczego nie tłumaczy, a też partacze deweloperzy aktywnie zwiększali ryzyko i koszt popełnienia błędu. Tworzy to ścianę przed każdym potencjalnym graczem, a to wraz z mało satysfakcjonującym designem powoduje że Lotniska stają się wiedzą tajemną. Kwestia jest taka, że wiele tych elementów jest sztucznych. Spędziłem swego czasu dużo czasu pisząc na temat tego jak gra ma okropny proces nauki. Problemy z UI, brak tutoriali , manual drop na low tier i same statystyki okrętów. Jak się to wszystko obejdzie to klasa jest zaskakująco prosta, a te "skillzory" którymi się wszyscy jarają w dużej mierze grają na tym samym średnim poziomie. Autentycznie dobrych graczy co do których wyższych umiejętności faktycznie byłem pewny mogę policzyć na palcach jednej ręki. Jedynie kwestia jest taka, że mało komu chce się męczyć, no bo po co...?
  13. Ishiro32

    Azur Lane Collab

    This wasn't very mature post. Event most likely will be optional and I doubt WG would use those questionable designs to promote it or even in event itself. Exposure will be limited so the only thing you argue is for you to not associate yourself with those creepy weebs that like watching those chinese cartoons. Kinda childish all things considered. I also hope that there is no country in europe that would throw you in jail for looking at a picture. No matter how much in poor taste/creepy it is. Whole concept sounds just too silly to be real. On the other hand I heard that in UK someone was convicted of a hate crime because he tought his dog to do nazi salute as a joke. So maybe UK treat seeing some doodles on a computer screen as a criminal offence. Must protect those drawings man, their feelings and emotions. At the end of the day it is another anime event. It is the third one, so I would assume people would already get over it. I am more interested why Kancolle did not want to collab with WG. Obviously KC is the biggest anime franchise related to warships and easily would become what GuP is for world of tanks. Is Kadokawa really that stupid that they did not want to associate with WG to protect their stagnating franchise? Interesting stuff.
  14. Ishiro32

    Yankee go home! CV players indeed!

    When I was playing CVs I was strong opponent of this sniping strategy. Why snipe and finish the game fast when the true enjoyment comes from interacting with enemy. It is also expensive strategy so unless someone straight up offered himself to me, I never went after them at the start. It was also to show people that you don't have to be a sniper to perform even when we had full-on sniper meta. It is a cheap one-trick pony strategy, but I also never hated people who used it as you know. It is a valid strategy. I just thought really good players should show people a performance and not cheese. They should be better than this and most of them sadly weren't. The focus on sniping instead of playing also significantly lowered overall CV player skill level at the time, on avarage carrier player was much worse than before since he never really learned how to interact with enemy CV. As you see I have strong opinions about sniping in the past, but... This is not 2015, you have plenty of tools to discourage a snipe. Think how to move your ship and fighters. When you don't see enemy planes for the first 3 minutes, get excited and focus. You clearly need to learn how to handle this cheese and you have everything you need. It is up to you
  15. Ishiro32

    Detonation Cancer Extravaganza

    Actually my Aunt currently is fighting with cancer. Language though is more nuanced than first encyclopedic definitions. Context and intentions are always most important in communication. The style and vocabulary are just reflection of a person with whom you are talking to. Think about OP what you want, but openly ignoring context and meaning behind his post is not beneficial to the overall communication. There is a lot of emotions connected with that word, but please don't try to bring them here. No one wants to think about it and word itself in context OP used is toothless.
×