CV Rework Discussion

[Procrastes]

7 hours ago, Akula971 said:

Everything is working as intended. Not from a game play perspective, but from a business one... Everything they do is calculated to try and generate income.

Well, of course. Wargaming runs a business, and they must make money to pay salaries and make dividends. There is nothing controversial or reprehensible about that. In order to stay profitable in the long run, an online game must - ideally, at least - continually revitalize itself. There must be a steady influx of new content, and some changes now and then to keep the game experience from stagnating. It would be safe to assume that the CV rework is grounded in these kinds of concerns.

 

Although it is probably still too early to tell, it would be interesting to know what financial effects the CV rework has had for Wargaming. For me personally, there has so far been only the one - namely, the purchase of the USS Enterprise. I've read too many posts by El2aZer to not be lured into trying out that badass ship for myself.* With this in mind I would guess that the rework has probably brought in a lot of money with the sales of premium carriers. It has also cost a lot of money, to be sure - this has been a long time developing. But this is strictly in the short term. What will be the long-term effects of the rework?

 

I won't claim to be able to predict the future. I have read post after post about players talking of quitting the game in search of greener pastures, but that is nothing new. I have been chewing on my own feelings about the rework for a while now, and I must say that I'm not really very happy about the way the game balance currently seems to be tilting. It is hard to hear people talk about carriers now being the "apex predators" and not feel the truth of that statement - but then again, the rework is still running, with balancing efforts going on even as I write these words.

 

So, no predictions. But I have a couple of speculations, from a layman's "business perspective", so to speak.

1. If the rework ends up making too many non-carrier players leave the game entirely, I'd say we can expect drastic changes from Wargaming's side. They may even remove carriers altogether, if it came to that. (Unlikely but possible. And not really a good thing whether one likes the new carriers or not, since we would lose a big part of the player base along the way.)
2. If the rework merely makes disgruntled non-carrier players start playing carriers instead, the game will move towards being a World of Carriers instead of a World of Warships. (I hope this won't happen either.)
3. If Wargaming eventually manages to balance the new carriers so that they will be entertaining not only to play, but also to play with and against - then the rework will settle and the game will roll on pretty much as usual.

I will end this post on a positive note: Wargaming has kept this game up and running for quite a number of years, now. It has changed in many ways, and most of them for the better. There's been a few hurdles along the way, of which this carrier rework is but the latest. Wargaming will sort this out, too. So call me an optimist, but I still believe "option no. 3" above to be the most likely outcome. We have a way to go until then, though.

 

Cheers!

 

 

* The merits and demerits of that ship has been debated at length elsewhere, and I will not go into them here. Let's just say that I do not disagree with El2aZer's opinion on this subject.

[arcticstorm123]

3 hours ago, Procrastes said:

Well, of course. Wargaming runs a business, and they must make money to pay salaries and make dividends. There is nothing controversial or reprehensible about that. In order to stay profitable in the long run, an online game must - ideally, at least - continually revitalize itself. There must be a steady influx of new content, and some changes now and then to keep the game experience from stagnating. It would be safe to assume that the CV rework is grounded in these kinds of concerns.

 

Although it is probably still too early to tell, it would be interesting to know what financial effects the CV rework has had for Wargaming. For me personally, there has so far been only the one - namely, the purchase of the USS Enterprise. I've read too many posts by El2aZer to not be lured into trying out that badass ship for myself.* With this in mind I would guess that the rework has probably brought in a lot of money with the sales of premium carriers. It has also cost a lot of money, to be sure - this has been a long time developing. But this is strictly in the short term. What will be the long-term effects of the rework?

 

I won't claim to be able to predict the future. I have read post after post about players talking of quitting the game in search of greener pastures, but that is nothing new. I have been chewing on my own feelings about the rework for a while now, and I must say that I'm not really very happy about the way the game balance currently seems to be tilting. It is hard to hear people talk about carriers now being the "apex predators" and not feel the truth of that statement - but then again, the rework is still running, with balancing efforts going on even as I write these words.

 

So, no predictions. But I have a couple of speculations, from a layman's "business perspective", so to speak.

1. If the rework ends up making too many non-carrier players leave the game entirely, I'd say we can expect drastic changes from Wargaming's side. They may even remove carriers altogether, if it came to that. (Unlikely but possible. And not really a good thing whether one likes the new carriers or not, since we would lose a big part of the player base along the way.)
2. If the rework merely makes disgruntled non-carrier players start playing carriers instead, the game will move towards being a World of Carriers instead of a World of Warships. (I hope this won't happen either.)
3. If Wargaming eventually manages to balance the new carriers so that they will be entertaining not only to play, but also to play with and against - then the rework will settle and the game will roll on pretty much as usual.

I will end this post on a positive note: Wargaming has kept this game up and running for quite a number of years, now. It has changed in many ways, and most of them for the better. There's been a few hurdles along the way, of which this carrier rework is but the latest. Wargaming will sort this out, too. So call me an optimist, but I still believe "option no. 3" above to be the most likely outcome. We have a way to go until then, though.

 

Cheers!

 

 

* The merits and demerits of that ship has been debated at length elsewhere, and I will not go into them here. Let's just say that I do not disagree with El2aZer's opinion on this subject.

Well I've played this game since 2015 (not a Unicum and no interest in being one, just play for fun ), bounced from BB's to CA's to CV's to DD's and back again multiple times.

 

CV's have been in the game as long as I've played as far as I remember and RTS was arguably a lot more damaging in the right hands than the current rework, for quite some time I think my RTS carriers had the most damage of any class, and like I said I'm no ace player.

 

I think the difference now is that people have had a break from CV's and they like it, sure if they removed DD's for a while I'm sure there are plenty of BB players who would applaud, and react angrily when they come back, but it's a bit much to say CV's don't belong in the game, they have been here for years save for the last year or so.

 

CV's are fresh in peoples minds because of the rework, over time the nerfs and boredom will move the bulk of players on to something else to moan about, and immediately rush to buy/acquire one (looks at Russian BB's and the Kobyashi camo IJN booster, how many Yamato's we going to see soon?).

 

Everybody needs to calm down, CV's won't mean the end of the game and by the way if I had €1 for every time I've heard that about new developments in the game I would own Wargaming by now 

 

 

 

 

[AndyHill]

When something has been in a game for years or since the start, it doesn't mean that something now belongs to the game, it's quite possible that it shouldn't have been in the game to begin with. Especially when a game is inspired by history and real ships and everybody knew what happened when carriers became a thing in reality. In reality, when carriers were present (as in Midway & Taiho -style fleet carriers in the Pacific), surface ships only got to fight each other in conditions where carriers couldn't operate (=at night). It's like making a game based on armored knights with swords and then adding a unit with a musket.

 

Also I have rarely seen current levels of general resentment towards anything in any (at least somewhat successful) game I've tried and I've seen many. Also manyplayers will just go quietly, perhaps even without being able to point a finger at exactly why they didn't like the game anymore. After all it takes quite a bit of experience to realize just how much carriers reduce tactical options and make it poorer when they are present. Of course even completely new players (as I've noticed recently) seem to instantly grow some hatred towards carriers when they get to T4 or so.

 

One thing that really puzzles me is how on earth any game designer can think that adding a unit that can just poop all over everyone else without counterplay is a decent idea.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

46 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

It's like making a game based on armored knights with swords and then adding a unit with a musket.

 

Dunno about the current CV implementation (which is indeed quite mind boggling) but I heard a lot of the (initial) developers in the WoWs team were actually former NavyField devs. And in NavyField the CV implementation worked just fine.

(It was a vastly different game tho.)

 

So adding CVs to surface ship battles isn't necessarily a bad idea since you have a precedence to take inspiration from, it's just a question of implementation.

Both the RTS and the rework failed quite hard in that regard. The former due to utter neglect, the latter because it is built upon incredibly stupid fundamentals.

 

I actually believe the current CV rework is what is left of the missiles they tested. The concept is practically the same.

[coyotecapri]

56 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

When something has been in a game for years or since the start, it doesn't mean that something now belongs to the game, it's quite possible that it shouldn't have been in the game to begin with. Especially when a game is inspired by history and real ships and everybody knew what happened when carriers became a thing in reality. In reality, when carriers were present (as in Midway & Taiho -style fleet carriers in the Pacific), surface ships only got to fight each other in conditions where carriers couldn't operate (=at night). It's like making a game based on armored knights with swords and then adding a unit with a musket.

 

Also I have rarely seen current levels of general resentment towards anything in any (at least somewhat successful) game I've tried and I've seen many. Also manyplayers will just go quietly, perhaps even without being able to point a finger at exactly why they didn't like the game anymore. After all it takes quite a bit of experience to realize just how much carriers reduce tactical options and make it poorer when they are present. Of course even completely new players (as I've noticed recently) seem to instantly grow some hatred towards carriers when they get to T4 or so.

 

One thing that really puzzles me is how on earth any game designer can think that adding a unit that can just poop all over everyone else without counterplay is a decent idea.

 

 

Euhm;enterprise attacked also by night,later in the war some planes did have radar(little history fact).That's why it was later called CV6N,n stands for night missions.

[Procrastes]

43 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

I actually believe the current CV rework is what is left of the missiles they tested. The concept is practically the same.

...um, missiles...?

[El2aZeR]

2 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

...um, missiles...?

 

Remember the 2nd alt RU DD line that was announced quite some time ago? The one where Neustrashimy was supposed to be in?

They tested missiles with those. You were supposed to steer them manually into the enemy ship. According to devs "was super fun but way op against certain classes", so they scrapped them.

 

I bet that's where they got the inspiration for the rework from.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

Becous balans

 

Spoiler

 

[Procrastes]

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Remember the 2nd alt RU DD line that was announced quite some time ago? The one where Neustrashimy was supposed to be in?

They tested missiles with those. You were supposed to steer them manually into the enemy ship. According to devs "was super fun but way op against certain classes", so they scrapped them.

 

I bet that's where they got the inspiration for the rework from.

 

Good bet - I agree. Super fun!

 

 

[Prospect_b]

On 5/7/2019 at 7:08 PM, El2aZeR said:

Enterprise RFs are the best ones in the game, being both devastatingly effective and easy to use.

But all little whiners here that whine against CVs also whined their little whiney as*es off when WG dared to touch the realm of "nerfing premiums". It's nice seeing them dig their own grave, isn't it?

 

Also, Audacious RFs are great against DDs too, and those aren't up in the nerf list?

Oh, but RN CVS are still pretty new, so a lot of ppl still grinding them.

Oh, that's a lot of potential FreeXP customers.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

Alright so....

This is going to be hilarious....

Spoiler

The DB adjustment is NOT a nerf. It is a HUGE buff. The dispersion is MUCH better than previously and because DBs can now maneuver with their reticle still closing (less than normal, but closing nonetheless) it is practically impossible to deny a DB the perfect drop angle assuming sufficient skill.

Last possible attack altitude adjustment is largely meaningless as is the bomb sigma nerf because the accuracy is so much better now.

New reticle compared to a Grozo:

Spoiler

 

What they have done is introduce a ~half a second delay between clicking and the actual attack. Whether this is working as intended or not remains to be seen.

 

Tl:dr: You're all ing doomed lol. Convert to CV mains now or suffer the consequences! 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 5 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

Alright so....

This is going to be hilarious....

  Versteckte Inhalte sichtbar machen

The DB adjustment is NOT a nerf. It is a HUGE buff. The dispersion is MUCH better than previously and because DBs can now maneuver with their reticle still closing (less than normal, but closing nonetheless) it is practically impossible to deny a DB the perfect drop angle assuming sufficient skill.

Last possible attack altitude adjustment is largely meaningless as is the bomb dispersion nerf because the reticle is so much better now.

New reticle compared to a Grozo:

  Versteckte Inhalte sichtbar machen

 

What they have done is introduce a ~half a second delay between clicking and the actual attack. Whether this is working as intended or not remains to be seen.

 

Tl:dr: You're all ing doomed lol. Convert to CV mains now or suffer the consequences! 

Oh look at that anti CV crowd and that is what you get for whining to much. As predicted but what do we CV mains know right?!

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Alright so....

This is going to be hilarious....

  Reveal hidden contents

The DB adjustment is NOT a nerf. It is a HUGE buff. The dispersion is MUCH better than previously and because DBs can now maneuver with their reticle still closing (less than normal, but closing nonetheless) it is practically impossible to deny a DB the perfect drop angle assuming sufficient skill.

Last possible attack altitude adjustment is largely meaningless as is the bomb sigma nerf because the accuracy is so much better now.

New reticle compared to a Grozo:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

What they have done is introduce a ~half a second delay between clicking and the actual attack. Whether this is working as intended or not remains to be seen.

 

Tl:dr: You're all ing doomed lol. Convert to CV mains now or suffer the consequences! 

I'm not so sure, dispersion seems simply elongated, just as described. And upon rereading announcement, this time without Cpt. Morgan influence, DBs get basically sigma nerf

current (0.8.3 live) in comparison

Spoiler

 

 

[El2aZeR]

15 minutes ago, Panocek said:

I'm not so sure, dispersion seems simply elongated, just as described. And upon rereading announcement, this time without Cpt. Morgan influence, DBs get basically sigma nerf

 

Looks to me like much less area is not covered tbh.

Also you have to consider that new accuracy s cruisers too.

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

8 hours ago, AndyHill said:

carriers reduce tactical options

Well, no. Hysteria, hyperbole and superlatives aside they require different and more varied tactical responses, it's just easier to argue against them by diminishing the value.

 

...and I really effin' hate them as a DD player. Which is why I've switched to CV's.

[Panocek]

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Also you have to consider that new accuracy s cruisers too.

Not exactly new thing, as Freedom DB  on anything except Midway/Haku deck

 

I'm almost amazed WG didn't took Midway's 2000lb bombs and replaced them with Lexi 1000lbers. I mean, how come USN carrier can just ship on glorious Russian Engineering with 60mm deck

[El2aZeR]

15 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Not exactly new thing, as Freedom DB  on anything except Midway/Haku deck

 

Yes, but it was very possible to get bad volleys due to RNG dispersion.

Now it won't be possible. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Yes, but it was very possible to get bad volleys due to RNG dispersion.

Now it won't be possible. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Depends how badly sigma will be affected. Knowing WG, they will set it negative, so it will be guaranteed to land on the edge

[El2aZeR]

7 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Depends how badly sigma will be affected. Knowing WG, they will set it negative, so it will be guaranteed to land on the edge

 

Reticle is smaller than a typical cruiser. No chance to miss.

[Panocek]

Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

Reticle is smaller than a typical cruiser. No chance to miss.

You're forgetting something. Crosshair is merely a suggestion when it comes to bomb actual dispersion

 

 

And then WG outdid themselves once more

Spoiler

so, who ordered DD dispersion on a battleship with Russian Bias grade guns?

 

[El2aZeR]

11 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Crosshair is merely a suggestion when it comes to bomb actual dispersion

 

I think they may have fixed that actually. At least I haven't seen bombs landing outside my reticle for quite some time now.

[ThePopesHolyFinger]

14 hours ago, Procrastes said:

 - but then again, the rework is still running, with balancing efforts going on even as I write these words.

 

 

And several years after WoT fubard WoT with arty (at which point many left WoT to play WoWs) WoT are reworking/balencing arty AGAIN.

It really feels like WG don't give a flying [edited]about their customers when they continue to introduce stupid crap, despite being told that stupid crap is stupid crap.

[AndyHill]

1 hour ago, WynnZeroOne said:

Well, no. Hysteria, hyperbole and superlatives aside they require different and more varied tactical responses, it's just easier to argue against them by diminishing the value.

So, what are the more varied tactical options that don't exist in non-carrier games?

[MEATxHEAD30]

I love this game. I continue to get pissed on my uptier CVs. Why even play torp boat DD. 

[Zen71_sniper]

 

 

 

15 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

 

I actually believe the current CV rework is what is left of the missiles they tested. The concept is practically the same.

 

That was my immediate thinking when I saw the rework. I think you are right.