Jump to content
Mangrey

Rework of CVs

161 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:23 AM, Pikkozoikum said:

they got over 5000 test players and all received a poll. So they should now, if 4500 player are against it, or just 100.

Pikkozoikum,

#1) over 5000 test players but not all of them likely played CVs, #2) receiving a poll is not the same as answering same, #3) you have no idea how many test players were for or against.

What we do know & the sample was small is that (approximately) 90% of Forum responses about the proposed CV rework were in the negative.

You don't need to inquire - you know what my reply to the test poll was. I answered in the Negative. I expect quite a few did but WG will likely never release the results anyway.

WG intends, intended from the start, to institute the CV rework FARCE.

My guess is for marketing & to make money. Of course, they can do so.

As to whether this ruins WoWS play (or a significant part of it), well that is a subjective judgement. You know my answer - it is a Ruinous FARCE (mpo).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,084 posts
7,560 battles
3 hours ago, antean said:

#3) you have no idea how many test players were for or against. 

13,2% were against.

 

3 hours ago, antean said:

90% of Forum responses about the proposed CV rework were in the negative.

People prefer to complain. Guess most posts in this forum are complains or boasts

 

3 hours ago, teen_geisha16 said:

SIMPLE AND ATTRACTIVE SOLUTION, MATCH CV BY WINRATE

 

instead of destroying them

CV waiting times: 1h? :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

13,2% were against

Source? Where is this figure posted by WG? Let us see the reference, Pikkozoikum? Or is this just a skinny rabbit pulled out of someone's butt?

 

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

People prefer to complain. Guess most posts in this forum are complains

The forum posters were overwhelmingly against the CV FARCE rework (as you well know). Many of those 'complainers' (as you biasly term them) gave valid reasons why they were against. Inconvenient truth is still truth, Pikkozoikum.

 

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

CV waiting times: 1h?

Again, an attempt to denigrate anyone who is against the CV FARCE rework. The idea presented had merit.

 

Really, Pikkozoikum, it is apparent that you are supportive of the CV rework FARCE. You keep up your charade of supposed neutrality & objectivity.

There's gonna be such a slaughter of the Farce CVs by DDs (in particular) when the FARCE goes live. It's gonna be a 'Happy Time'.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles

upthumbed for the reference, Pikkozoikum (see I can upthumb you).

Again, you conveniently ignore the totals given that indicate real problems with the CV FARCE rework.

Sure, there are 32.1% who liked it as opposed to 13.2% who disliked it (where my poll submission went) so that's essentially a 2:1 ratio but less than half of all respondents.

What is more telling & I thank WG for admitting the same is the 50.8% of respondents that were both 'for & against' the rework.

We don't know how WG determined this & what the actual breakdown of the for & against reasons were - likely all the reasons specifically mentioned are included in this 50.8%.

 The point here is WG does not break this down further hence it can be argued that 13.2% + 50.8% = 64% of respondents believe there are problems with the rework.

In reverse, it could be argued that 32.1% + 50.8%  = 82.9% of respondents believe there aren't problems with the rework.

Hence, ratio-wise, this is essentially, 80:60 or 4:3 (or 100/7 = 14%) therefore 4X14 = 56% are for and 3X14 = 42% are against.

The only conclusion that can be made, besides a slight majority in favour of the rework & considerable opposition to it is …

 that there is a very large population of test poll respondents that see a lot of problems with this rework.

 Guess what, Pikkozoikum, ever since WoWS was in original Alpha & Beta testing there has been CV controversy. Four years + with RTS game play (well established).

 With the Rework incoming (no matter for or against) there is going to be more years of continuing CV controversy.

This is my prediction. The CV problem will continue & will not go away until the anti - CV haters get rid of CVs completely.

(anyone see the analogy to Artillery in WoT here?)

I don't hate CVs but I hate the CV rework FARCE so I will become a non - CV player (as others likely will) so the anti - CV haters have achieved a partial victory.

RIP decent RTS CV play, RIP

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,084 posts
7,560 battles

82.9% Like it. That's the important thing. If it's not finished or if there are issues doesn't matter. The majority likes it and if it's not finished, then it needs more work. That has nothing to do with that the rework is bad, if most people like it.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,180 posts
6,093 battles
11 hours ago, teen_geisha16 said:

 

SIMPLE AND ATTRACTIVE SOLUTION, MATCH CV BY WINRATE

 

instead of destroying them

I do wonder how you'll implement this? CV players with the same winrate against each other?

On the long term, everybody will have a winrate around 50%. A super unicum player, matched against an equally skilled player, will lose about half of the games. That'll put him right in the same bracket as the potato who had the same lack of skill as his opponent, but is now matched against a super unicum, because they both have 50% winrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
27 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

82.9% Like it.

Incorrect, Pikkozoikum. Can you not read? Only  32.1% liked it. Please re-read the article you referenced, as many times as necessary, to understand exactly who liked it.

Note to Pikkozoikum: the 50.8% were referenced as both liking & not liking aspects of the rework so this figure can be utilized both ways (which I did).

Nice try to misrepresent the facts, Pikkozoikum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
9,482 battles
5 hours ago, Robber_Baron said:

Me pregunto cómo vas a implementar esto? ¿Jugadores de CV con el mismo winrate unos contra otros?

A largo plazo, todos tienen una tasa de ganancias de alrededor del 50%. Un jugador súper unico, emparejado contra un jugador igualmente hábil, perderá aproximadamente la mitad de los juegos. Eso se encuentra en el mismo nivel que la papa que tenía la misma falta de habilidad que su oponente, pero ahora se compara con un súper único, porque ambos tienen una tasa de ganancias del 50%.

It is a way of balancing the CV, which is much preferable to the change we want to make, so no one can say that the bad CV player has touched it.

 

Pikkozoikum is just a troll hater cvs

 

There are two reasons why a player likes to use:
-1 the tactical game cvs : the change kills the tactical game
-2 damage: now they do little damage (for the record, this really does not matter to me)

 

The question is: where is your ability to learn?

 

and if I prefer to wait an hour (clear exaggeration) before playing something as simple as what we want to put

 

and Pikkozoikum. I have not seen any positive comments on the change in the forums.

 

If the change is to facilitate the use of CVS, they would only have to limit the AA fire of some ships. Although they really are not a problem for me

 

Many people complain that he has played the bad player of cv, I playing cv I do not complain if the enemy puts 3 devastating blows to the cruisers of my team in 30 seconds and we lose because of them, and nobody is scandalized.

 

or fuso sunk in the minute 2 by angularly wrong the ship, for example

 

from the top view of the aircraft carrier you see many novices doing nonsense (even in tier X) and I have not yet seen anyone complain about the high citadels of the Japanese battleships, so I'm either using them or leaving them, I I use them

 

the mechanics of the aircraft carrier is good, and is not so complicated I learned to take them but it is easier to cry to see if they make it easier

 

this is a tactical game, I hope things a bit difficult is part of the charm.

 

Another idea with the exit of the submarines could be:

the submarines begin in tier 4
the aircraft carriers begin in tier 5

 

climbing a tier is given to understand that they are a bit difficult (not so much that there is also much crying)

 

I also want to remember that the cvs already have several nerfs

 

MY DESIRE FOR THIS CHRISTMAS (IF ANY DEVELOPER SEES THIS) IS THAT:  THE AIRCRAFTCARRIERS DONT CHANGE, health goes in second place XD.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,180 posts
6,093 battles

What I mean is that I think matchmaking based on winrate won't work, since eventually everybody will end up with about the same winrate just because of that matchmaking.

 

As for CVs without change: while I've yet to see the rework to become a success (and don't like how they seemed to ignore players like Fara), I have no doubt they'll not pull it back. So do what you want: be angry about them, quit the game, or learn to play the new CVs, but I'm sure the old CVs will be gone in a month.

 

For the record: I liked the "rts" CVs, would've played them more often if the rework wasn't coming, and being on the receiving end way more often I never understood the hate for CVs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
9,482 battles
Take them this month that is left and then sell them,
it will be a disaster for a class that already touches few people 
(like when they took the graff zeppelin )
then they will say they were not warned.

If the few people we like stop playing, it's as if they did not exist.

I will spend the free exp on battleships and destroyers

 

 


 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
6 hours ago, teen_geisha16 said:

Pikkozoikum is just a troll hater cvs

I'm not sure Pikkozoikum is a troll CV hater but he/she/it may be a WG zombie, you know, the type who defend WG no matter what 'WF' does.

 

8 minutes ago, teen_geisha16 said:

destroyers

DDs, now that's the ticket to hunt & sink the incoming reworked CV FARCES. I'm looking forward to 'happy hunting' these FARCE CVs because I will refuse (as many will) to play them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
3 minutes ago, teen_geisha16 said:

good luck in your cv hunting, now they do not have self-defense XD.

WF has made it even more probable that these CV rework FARCES will anchor (most certainly in the usual obvious places on the map) just like the moronic CV players do now, lol.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
150 posts
1,515 battles
On 12/28/2018 at 7:02 PM, antean said:

Source? Where is this figure posted by WG? Let us see the reference, Pikkozoikum? Or is this just a skinny rabbit pulled out of someone's butt?

 

The forum posters were overwhelmingly against the CV FARCE rework (as you well know). Many of those 'complainers' (as you biasly term them) gave valid reasons why they were against. Inconvenient truth is still truth, Pikkozoikum.

 

Again, an attempt to denigrate anyone who is against the CV FARCE rework. The idea presented had merit.

 

Really, Pikkozoikum, it is apparent that you are supportive of the CV rework FARCE. You keep up your charade of supposed neutrality & objectivity.

There's gonna be such a slaughter of the Farce CVs by DDs (in particular) when the FARCE goes live. It's gonna be a 'Happy Time'.

 

Well maybe carriers will finally have to operate in a group like every other class instead of hiding in a corner? You know, the same way BB's can get demolished by a DD if they don't stick near cruisers.

 

Seems to me the complainers are a vocal minority.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,084 posts
7,560 battles
1 hour ago, canuckster said:

 

Well maybe carriers will finally have to operate in a group like every other class instead of hiding in a corner? You know, the same way BB's can get demolished by a DD if they don't stick near cruisers.

 

Seems to me the complainers are a vocal minority.

Would be nice, if CVs should stay around with the Battleships!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
10,542 posts
16,048 battles
1 hour ago, canuckster said:

Well maybe carriers will finally have to operate in a group like every other class instead of hiding in a corner?

 

Kek no.

With current CVs you have your strike efficiency to consider. The closer you are to the battlefield, the faster your strike cycles, the more strikes you can fly per match. That obviously carries a bit of risk with it if you aren't attentive enough.

Reworked CVs are the only ships in the match which have good AA along with a pretty much permanent CAP. You can also just camp on the border of the map since planes are fast enough that you don't need to consider moving closer.

 

So instead of CVs moving with the fleet other classes must cuddle their CVs for AA protection.

Welcome to the CV rework.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
5 hours ago, canuckster said:

maybe carriers will finally have to operate in a group like every other class instead of hiding in a corner

the new CV rework FARCE play encourages 'hiding in a corner' if the CV 'operates' (moves).

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Would be nice, if CVs should stay around with the Battleships

they should if the BBs don't move since the CVs are encouraged not to move (just like the current stupid RTS CV players do).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
841 battles
3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

You can also just camp on the border of the map

and which the reworked CV FARCE encourages

3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

So instead of CVs moving with the fleet other classes must cuddle their CVs for AA protection. 

Welcome to the CV rework.

Yep. Welcome to the new reworked CV FARCE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
9,482 battles
On 1/6/2019 at 2:56 AM, El2aZeR said:

 

Kek no.

With current CVs you have your strike efficiency to consider. The closer you are to the battlefield, the faster your strike cycles, the more strikes you can fly per match. That obviously carries a bit of risk with it if you aren't attentive enough.

Reworked CVs are the only ships in the match which have good AA along with a pretty much permanent CAP. You can also just camp on the border of the map since planes are fast enough that you don't need to consider moving closer.

 

So instead of CVs moving with the fleet other classes must cuddle their CVs for AA protection.

Welcome to the CV rework.

 

nightmare cv rework you will want to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
105 posts
1,651 battles

To me it seems that the majority of the playerbase are against the suggested CV rework, which is upcoming in the next patch.

What I find really weird, is that they're going with a direction that makes CV play much more down the lines of a simplified world of warplanes gameplay.
Because the main issue in regards to too great skill differences between CV players, comes from having way too much direct control over the squadrons, this rework doesn't really fix that, in fact it gives you even more direct control over the squadrons performance output, although it's more action oriented as opposed to RTS-oriented. Personally I think they could've fixed this issue by limitting the amount of direct control over the squadrons actual performance output, and let the CV's have more planes available, tone down the AA a good deal. Because basically all other ships than carriers have infinite amount of shells and torpedos (of course only those that have torps.), where the carrier's planes are the equivalent of main gun ammo and torpedos. Where making carriers being able to carry an infinite amount of planes (but still limits on amount slots), will make up for them being much more based on RNG rather than skill, where the skill element comes from knowing what and when to target, and so on - which comes from experience. Basically it's about levelling the playing field for the carrier players, so even when the skill differences between the opposing players are too great, the weaker player still has and actual chance, because the performance of the squadrons are based on RNG, and not skill with directly controlling the squadrons.

@antean - I agree with you, the CV rework is a farce, and it's a real shame that WG doesn't realize what they're about to do and what consequences it will actually have for game and future matches.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CROPS]
Players
195 posts
13,021 battles

Tone down aa?? U cant be serious.... I am not a cv plyr but rather a victim and actualy aa i find adequate only on 3 ships i played so far, NoCa, Gneisenau, and Salem. Keep in mind that aa suite is the ONLY defence ships have against planes. U cant compare it with main guns cause i can angle or dodge main btry shots, my survival is in my hands mostly. U cant dodge planes, u can only hope ur aa will take em down or thin em out before the man drop. They are infact comparable with main battery that have guided shots, accuracy of a harpoon missile with a warhead of a tomahawk. Take down aa and u just killed all other classes. How do u propose a ship defend itself if it has no ability to defeat airstrike? And there is many great ships with virtualy no aa and no chance to survive if it gets targeted by a cv ( i am talking about games where friendly cv has no interest in protecting his fleet but flies fighters only to protect his own strikes. Saw so much of that, with my eternal respect given to those skippers that actualy fly protective cap for capital ships that are carrying the game. I bow to all 4 of them). Musashi and Nelson for example, Tirpitz and so on. IJN cruisers also. Usn cruisers with some battleships are the only counter to cvs deciding at their free will which of us are they gonna kill next and leaving us without any options but going back to port and hoping for a cv free game.... And if it gets too much, just uninstalling and finding us a new arcade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×