Worried CV Rework

[lafeel]

3 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

Then sir, is that enough to change the whole style of play because you personally don't like the RTS but except that other do?  Or do you simply say "it's not for me" and let it live?

 

Truly interested to hear what you think 

 

Do you think it's enough to change the whole layout of CV play because you don't like the RTS style? 

 

Hope you can answer honestly and don't have a hidden agenda like many players do.

No, I have no agenda against CV's, or (competent) CV players. In fact I make a point of complimenting them in game when I see them play well.

 

Of course a lot of players (regardless of class) don't have the first clue how to play their boats..

[Redcap375]

Just now, lafeel said:

No, I have no agenda against CV's, or (competent) CV players. In fact I make a point of complimenting them in game when I see them play well.

 

Of course a lot of players (regardless of class) don't have the first clue how to play their boats..

 

So again.....Do you think they should change the style of play because of my last comments (that you don't personally like RTS)?

[lafeel]

3 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

So again.....Do you think they should change the style of play because of my last comments (that you don't personally like RTS)?

If it helps more people play cv's, without dumbing them to the point of even a literal monkey can, yes they should.

 

Also, I do like RTS, just didn't sign up to play WoWS as a one. :P

[Redcap375]

Just now, lafeel said:

If it helps more people play cv's, without dumbing them to the point of even a literal mokey can, yes they should.

 

Also, I do like RTS, just didn't sign up to play WoWS as a one. :P

 

Thanks mate for your honest opinion 

 

Just bare in mind that other players enjoy the RTS side of things in WOWS so all that boiled down to personal choice.  But your point is valid as it simply might be that i'm in the minority and your the majority.  The majority pays the bills at the end of the day so fair cop.

 

Lets see what they do then.  I too hope they don't dumb it down.

 

Cheers 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

I could imagine, that they do it like when you change view. The closer view and not the top down view. And maybe it'S a real squadron: 12 planes and you control them with W A S D for height and direction. Could be also with different planes in one squadron, which would have different function just like a ship with different weapons and consumables. But that's just an idea, how it could be solved without being an RTS.

Well maybe it could be two squadrons then to make air combat somehow possible.

[El2aZeR]

I highly doubt air to air combat is going to be a factor in the CV rework as it stands currently. Not only would this once again create a huge disparity between good and bad CV players once again, it'd be nigh impossible to control.

[Pikkozoikum]

Nothing is impossible. If you want to develop it, it would be pretty easy to control. It's up to Wargaming, they decide if they want Air Combat or not and they decide how it has to be controlled. Just right now I would have at least 2 ideas how it would be possible to control without any big issues to develop

[lafeel]

Just now, Pikkozoikum said:

Nothing is impossible. If you want to develop it, it would be pretty easy to control

It is a very tricky balance to get just right though. Easy to control, but not so easy as to piss off everyone who made the effort to master the previous version by making it too easy.

[Pikkozoikum]

16 minutes ago, lafeel said:

It is a very tricky balance to get just right though. Easy to control, but not so easy as to piss off everyone who made the effort to master the previous version by making it too easy.

Well, people have often problems with changes. But the developer said, they want change it, so they have to accept the change? It will be different. I was just assuming how it could be possible or how I would imagine the change. But we have to wait for more information anyways

[lafeel]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, people have often problems with changes. But the developer said, they won't change it, so they have to accept the change? It will be different. I was just assuming how it could be possible or how I would imagine the change. But we have to wait for more information anyways

Different does not automatically mean better.

 

Thankfully it doesn't automatically mean worse either.

 

Waiting and hoping for the best sounds good at this point, we don't know enough to speculate, and those that do know are under NDA.

[Pikkozoikum]

Just now, lafeel said:

Different does not automatically mean better.

 

Thankfully it doesn't automatically mean worse either.

 

Waiting and hoping for the best sounds good at this point, we don't know enough to speculate, and those that do know are under NDA.

Never said it will be better or worse.

But for me it's unlikely that the change will be worse and I really hope it.. I like CVs in general, but I don't like the gameplay in WoWs of CVs very much.

Well I'm excited and hope they give us some more information soon

[lafeel]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Never said it will be better or worse.

But for me it's unlikely that the change will be worse and I really hope it.. I like CVs in general, but I don't like the gameplay in WoWs of CVs very much.

Well I'm excited and hope they give us some more information soon

Same here. Hell, if they make it feel less like trying to do juggling (something I am terrible at (bad hand eye coordination) in rl) I might even try carriers again.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Nothing is impossible. If you want to develop it, it would be pretty easy to control.

 

That's not how game design nor balance works. If your goal is to lessen the skill gap between CV players, as they've already stated, any kind of direct air-to-air interaction is undesirable.

[Pikkozoikum]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

That's not how game design nor balance works. If your goal is to lessen the skill gap between CV players, as they've already stated, any kind of direct air-to-air interaction is undesirable.

No idea what you're talking about. If Wargaming don't want air combat, then we won't get it. What's the point?

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

No idea what you're talking about. If Wargaming don't want air combat, then we won't get it. What's the point?

 

Game design or balancing is not about making up a mechanic then trying to balance it. If you design a mechanic that is inherently broken in some way then no matter how much you tweak it, it will stay that way.

Best example for that is the idea of making fighters capable of strafing ships that you came up with previously. It will not work out no matter how much you try to tweak it. That is simply not how game design works.

 

Would it be possible to create direct fighter combat? Sure. Does it conform to WG's goal of lessening the impact of player skill? Definitely not.

Thus it becomes irrelevant whether or not it is possible to do it.

[VC381]

@El2aZeR that's only if you start with the set assumption that allowing direct air combat automatically means being able to wipe the sky clean of a less skilled enemy to the same degree strafing currently does. But there are plenty of ways to allow direct confrontation while minimising skill impact. You might not like it but RNG is one such way, others are not implementing one-hit KO abilities (e.g. strafe). So you can tweak it. Some people might find the result more or less acceptable but it doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Pikkozoikum]

8 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Game design or balancing is not about making up a mechanic then trying to balance it. If you design a mechanic that is inherently broken in some way then no matter how much you tweak it, it will stay that way.

Best example for that is the idea of making fighters capable of strafing ships that you came up with previously. It will not work out no matter how much you try to tweak it. That is simply not how game design works.

 

Would it be possible to create direct fighter combat? Sure. Does it conform to WG's goal of lessening the impact of player skill? Definitely not.

Thus it becomes irrelevant whether or not it is possible to do it.

 

No, that's not true, it always works like that. Always when something becomes added, a new mechanic, a new ship has to be balanced afterwards. When some testers test new upcoming ships, they always say "Stats are not final"... after your logic it would make no sense to say that, because balancing doesn't work afterwards and everything is final from the beginning?

 

 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

after your logic it would make no sense to say that, because balancing doesn't work afterwards and everything is final from the beginning?

 

If you design a broken mechanic, yes. There is stuff you don't need testing to know that it will simply not work because they are inherently broken in one way or another. Strafing ships with fighters is one of them.

 

5 hours ago, VC381 said:

that's only if you start with the set assumption that allowing direct air combat automatically means being able to wipe the sky clean of a less skilled enemy to the same degree strafing currently does.

 

Here's the thing: If it doesn't, why bother with direct air combat in the first place? If individual skill has negligible impact, then doesn't that mean the mechanic itself becomes redundant or, even worse, a potential noob trap?

I'm well aware of the possibilities, but the very nature of what fighter combat is supposed to do stands against WG's philosophy of lessening the skill gap between good and bad CV players, thus we will most likely see a lot of automation in this aspect.

[VC381]

8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Here's the thing: If it doesn't, why bother with direct air combat in the first place? If individual skill has negligible impact, then doesn't that mean the mechanic itself becomes redundant or, even worse, a potential noob trap?

 

You're coming at this from a competitive point of view and that's fine. But you're being absolutist, either skill should cause landslide wins or there's no point including the mechanic. You can still have some skill impact without creating the possibility for complete oppression. The purpose of direct air combat is, and should be, to reduce the damage potential of the enemy CV. The extent of that effect is where skill comes in. The degree to which the activity is worth it and how much skill affects the outcome can be tweaked.

 

E.g. fighter damage is tuned such that any monkey can down 10% of an enemy strike before it drops, a skilled player can usually down 30%-40% but even the best player in perfect circumstances can never down more than 50%. That's a formula where skill matters and the activity is worth doing, but where it's not oppressively biased towards skill alone.

 

The other point is atmosphere and flavour, as I keep saying. Sometimes people just want to enjoy the game, and air combat is a crucial part of carrier warfare. So let people have their dogfights, if it's pretty and immersive that's a purpose in itself.

[El2aZeR]

6 minutes ago, VC381 said:

The other point is atmosphere and flavour, as I keep saying. Sometimes people just want to enjoy the game, and air combat is a crucial part of carrier warfare. So let people have their dogfights, if it's pretty and immersive that's a purpose in itself.

 

Except that, again, one of the goals of the much vaunted CV rework is to lessen the skill gap between good and bad CV players. You're not working towards that goal by including a mechanic that works contrary to what you want to achieve.

The difference between 10% and 30-40% is already far too high. A CV player that shoots down only 10% of a strike can basically be ignored, while downing 30-50% has huge ramifications. If the difference however isn't as big (say, 20% vs 30%), the mechanic itself becomes pointless UNLESS there is no automated component to it, which on the other hand would increase the need of multitasking dramatically. That'd ironically make CVs harder to play than they are now, again contrary to what the rework is supposed to achieve.

 

By just including direct fighter combat you're designing yourself into a corner with no way out.

[Pikkozoikum]

I see no problem with Air combat, I mean it's not a 1on1, so why bother with that?

[Fat_Maniac]

On 5/8/2018 at 12:51 PM, TomBombardil said:

Allright.

 

I, TomBombardil (CV'ish main, since early CBT), am worried about CV rework.

 

I have watched, struggeld and "excepted" that WG keeps on shitting on CV and CV "Ballance".

Not only have they keept buffing AA, intruduce % wise more AA ship (% even more "AA no fly zones"), and nerfed CV. They also sold nerfs as buffs. And made the UI progressingly worse.

BUT thats not why im worrierd, since i dont have a high regard for WG (let allone WG^CV).

 

But THIS IS:

Year of the CV^tm, CV^rework is a front for:  "Year of the Console", get  CV^WoWp console ready.

 

Since CV do need work (UI, AA, fighter rng, etc) All players (including CV players) agree on CV need a rework!

I suspected this wouldn't go in the direction cv players hope for in general.

But now there are "confermed" rumours: (Waterline) & Jingles.

 

Here the CV rework is being "rumourd" as making CV's to WoWp & console ready. Now i dont wanne go in to the details. but my question to the CV communatie is:

 

1. IS there intrest for an Cohort (jointly) response or put up some jointly protests?

Can we (the CV players) make a common "cv fist" vs the WG hammer?

and is it worth the effort?

 

Best Regards,

TomBombardil

 

One of the first haka match everrhh,  

ps; this video brought me back to WoWs (quited it soon afther lauche)

& i hate lineriding, refused to do it. Still bashing about lineriding occasionally. should have know better VS aerroon

 

Too few CV players in the player total population, so I'm afraid WG have no reason to listen to you, no matter how reasoned or sensible your arguments might be. Instead i think they want to come up with something new to excite and attract non CV players to try them.

[Sargento_YO]

2 hours ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Too few CV players in the player total population, so I'm afraid WG have no reason to listen to you, no matter how reasoned or sensible your arguments might be. Instead i think they want to come up with something new to excite and attract non CV players to try them.

 

It will be both funny and really sad, with what we know no "non cv players" will join the new system, and most of us who plays cvs will stop doing it... (The hell, control ONLY ONE squad at the time?!).

So far everything it´s set to discourage CVS and nerf them (unfixed bugs which happens since SIX versions ago, Im tired of reporting them, Defensive fire AA, ships which creates "no fly zones"... Oncoming Worchester... Removal of manual attacks for tier 4 and 5 cvs... And now this so called "rework")

[TomBombardil]

@everyone Thx for the Feedback. Im composing a message since i wanne do it right (wiht reverances and stuff)it's taking  a while. it will be up sunday at the end of day.

[megaducky]

To be frank, I'm worried by this. CVs were incredibly fun to learn for me, as I was drawn by the allure of an immensely difficult class to which there was no limit to how skilled I could get. Although oftentimes I was worn down to the point of tears by the triple minotaur games, or by the cancerous fighter spec US CVs, I never gave them up, simply because I could sense the potential that could be unlocked if I kept trying. In essence, the skill gap was what motivated me to play. The RTS style controls also intrigued me, turning the game into a highly engaging chess type match, and however they do it, I doubt the layout could be much more accessibly presented then with a top down view. The top down view allows me to accurately draw my torpedo attack lines, and to see the view of the battle clearly. 

The biggest barrier to entry to CVs is the multitasking and subtle nuance involved in the air war. One of which comes with a bit of practice, and the other with hundreds of games played. However, I wouldn't trade the current CV meta for a "more exciting" less thoughtful gameplay style.

So yes, I'd be interested in joining your group.