CV Rework Discussion

[DFens_666]

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

If you really think that spotting by CVs is an issue (which I don’t think it is) WG COULD Limit it in different ways which btw have been discussed multiple times

- spot only for minimap 

- spot transmit to team button (like radar)

- reduce distance where you “see” spotted enemies yourself

- remove spotting for fighters 

- etc pp

 

However WG doesn’t seem to believe it’s a huge issue. Preventing a flanking move? Really...? Well I think you have some romantic dreams about the state of random games. “Parking Lot” is a nice understatement for this mainly boring and untactical clusterfork and that is not only since the rework. But yea keep blaming the CVs for that 

 

Btw the Reddit number crunch showed apparently that the new CVs spot significantly less than the RTS ones. 

 

CV spotting is the biggest issue imo. Most of the time, you could evade CV attacks, but the result will be a harsh punishment by anything else which is in range. Especially at T10, where a CV strike also hurts. So you have 2 options:

Dont evade, take the punishment from CV, which can be pretty bad, or take an unfavorable turn which can be even worse.

A Cruiser which is spotted by a CV has to dodge somewhere, since BBs most likely have the range to hit you. Even if the CV is not attacking the Cruiser in the first place. DDs spotted by a CV is ofc a problem aswell, since many people will take a potshot at that DD. If the DD wouldnt be spotted, he could focus more on evading the CV attack.

BBs suffer the least, since they are furthest behind anyway, and take also the lowest damage (best torpedobelt, best armor). And they dont mind being spotted as much anyway.

 

Balancing would be much easier, if they would remove spotting. WG will try anything else, because they are dumb as usual.

[El2aZeR]

12 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Actually I found the Fighters to be absolutely not an Issue.

 

Depends on their placement which is little time wasted for the enemy CV. When optimally placed they will either cause losses before you can drop or waste even more of your time by forcing you to avoid them.

Placing fighters directly on your CV does very little indeed.

 

14 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Especially with the TB Repair of the Kaga. I can often get a Second Drop into the Enemy despite Fighters on my Tail. Because they need too long to actually give chase and start doing damage.

 

That's actually a cheese. Not sure if it is working as intended really.

[Uglesett]

35 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Which is nothing more than your personal opinion. Zero rationale behind this. The opposite is true - they fir very well into the game 

Concealment

Terrain

Gun ballistics

Armour angling

Acceleration and handling

 

These are all fundamental characteristics which determine how ships handle against each other in this game. Which of these apply to aircraft? Which of the aircraft mechanisms apply to other vessels?

 

The game is fundamentally designed around surface combatants, and they are what the game mechanics are built to represent. Aircraft mechanics are tacked on.

 

Heck, at least in the rts version you had a consistent user interface for automated armaments (secondaries and aa). Now you don't even have that, there's this clumsy AA control that's separate from everything else.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Concealment

Terrain

Gun ballistics

Armour angling

Acceleration and handling

 

These are all fundamental characteristics which determine how ships handle against each other in this game. Which of these apply to aircraft? Which of the aircraft mechanisms apply to other vessels?

 

The game is fundamentally designed around surface combatants, and they are what the game mechanics are built to represent. Aircraft mechanics are tacked on.

 

Heck, at least in the rts version you had a consistent user interface for automated armaments (secondaries and aa). Now you don't even have that, there's this clumsy AA control that's separate from everything else.

 

I have an opinion about this armor angling but yes it is part of the game.

 

Your “core” mechanics apply to all four classes to varying degrees though. 

 

Don’t get me wrong - there are differences with CVs, mainly that you control two units rather than your usual one and the way you can move across the map. But this doesn’t mean it won’t work in the same theatre at all. 

 

See WG already applies tons of GAMEY mechanics to make unequal classes equal enough

to fight each other. And they do the same with CVs. Statements like “can’t be balanced” are therefore completely wrong. You can balance anything you want with enough gameplay concessions. 

[Toivia]

4 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

What options? Even mini map icons will ruin flanking attempts. Make them blind or forbid any form. Of communication? If WG could balance CVs they would do it long time ago. 

Incorrect, many people still don't watch the minimap. Hell I miss stuff on it plenty times. I guess the average potato even goes: I cannot see the ship, it's as if it wasn't there.

 

Whether that would be enough to fix CVs? Doubt it. I just don't see how WG could balance an interaction of player controlled planes (from first person view only, thus limited to one squadron) and player controlled ships. And that's above and beyond the fact that first person flying with planes in a ship game feels very out of place for me.

[ApolloF117]

3rd shell type for every ship,  with short reloadtime, aka canister shells,if we have planes that wasnt even on a cv, give us shells that are effective agains them

[AndyHill]

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

WG has plenty of options if they want to change the spotting aspect 

Which of the available options do you feel would be most effective in allowing people to make moves by controlling their concealment when carriers are in play?

[Procrastes]

21 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

However that isn’t an issue of the rework but an issue with WG refusing to give players control over their AA guns. That would be a player vs player situation - however WG doesn’t want to unfortunately. 

I believe that with the amount of multitasking that is in play already, any system with player-controlled AA-guns would be very unwieldy and too hard to use effectively, at least for the average player. This would be a problem for all ship classes, but perhaps especially for destroyers - the guy who recently wrote that very detailed reddit-document* on destroyer gameplay, brings this up as well.

 

I agree that the impact of AA guns probably needs to be adjusted. At the moment our AA guns don't seem to make much difference, unless the CV player flies his planes straight into a bunch of flak bursts and gets his whole flight evaporated. Not having back-up planes magically teleport in to fill the gaps when attacking planes are shot down might perhaps make a difference, aside from general tweaks to damage numbers and hit probabilities.

 

*Jingles talks about this document, and also provides a link to it, in one of his CV-special videos.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

There are to many people here who choose the lazy option of saying "not able to be balanced".

I respect El2aZeRs opinions but i'm very sure that you can balance it.

What most of you are forgetting is that just because you all agree  each other for the CV rework to be simply flawed that this doesn't mean that nothing can be done because of that agreement.

WG will find ways to make it work and they will not tweak it until El2aZeR suddenly can only manage average dmg because he is a super unicum

CV inherently flawed my ☆.

But continue on circling around while giving no ideas at all on how to improve it all.

I so wish btw that they get back to RTS. There was less crying, i don't care for less CVs anyways but i will ☆ up your game regardless of RTS or reworked CVs. You won't be in AA ships 24/7 anymore once again and it will be as easy as it is now if not easier.

[El2aZeR]

6 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

What most of you are forgetting is that just because you all agree  each other for the CV rework to be simply flawed that this doesn't mean that nothing can be done because of that agreement.

 

A fundamentally flawed product cannot be saved and deserves to be scrapped precisely because it is fundamentally flawed.

But again, so many of you seem convinced that the concept of a class that can always and at any given time absolutely murder any other class aside from themselves can somehow be balanced. I have yet to see a single objective argument as to why that is.

 

The irony of labeling our stance as "lazy" when we have given pretty good reasons as to why we believe that the CV rework cannot be saved while you have yet to give us a single objective argument to convince us otherwise is rather amusing, no?

[anonym_RGvUdEcxWWvD]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

A fundamentally flawed product cannot be saved and deserves to be scrapped precisely because it is fundamentally flawed.

But again, so many of you seem convinced that the concept of a class that can always and at any given time absolutely murder any other class aside from themselves can somehow be balanced. I have yet to see a single objective argument as to why that is.

 

The irony of labeling our stance as "lazy" when we have given pretty good reasons as to why we believe that the CV rework cannot be saved while you have yet to give us a single objective argument to convince us otherwise is rather amusing, no?

Im rather amused you are turning against CV. How the times have changed. I remember a year ago when you stood up for the old CV, claiming we should all learn to play and spec for AA. The funny part is that the old RTS was more broken.

[ApolloF117]

23 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

I so wish btw that they get back to RTS. There was less crying, i don't care for less CVs anyways but i will ☆ up your game regardless of RTS or reworked CVs. You won't be in AA ships 24/7 anymore once again and it will be as easy as it is now if not easier.

Except AA would work and shot the planes down, cv would run out of planes again etc etc, you know like conway suggested that 3-4 ships has "effective" AA now, which was really effective in the old system, hell even in jean bart could [edited]up at least 2 squad out of 3 from a t10 cv. Have you gave any idea how to improve the gameplay instead of telling everyone to just accept the one we have now  or leave?

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, Zlaraki said:

I remember a year ago when you stood up for the old CV, claiming we should all learn to play and spec for AA.

 

While I did tell you to l2p, I claimed that specializing for AA was broken (as in you should not need to specialize into AA to be effective against CVs).

Funnily enough specializing into AA is even more broken now because it offers pitiful returns for points invested while l2p no longer applies since what would be a safe formation back in the RTS iteration is now extremely vulnerable to reworked CVs.

 

So much for "old RTS was more broken" lol.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Here is a suggestion that i would bring which is to limit the amount of strikes a CV can have per match.

So lets make that number 8 strikes.

So the CV can chose to sortie a total of 8 times during 20minutes.

CV can either sortie recon and get them to an area he wants intel on for his strike to be even possible or sortie attack planes regardless and use the spotting provided by the own team.

The wait time between sorties is 1minute.

 

Recon planes provide spotting only for the CV, stay in a designated area like a consumeable for let's say 2 minutes and allow the attack sortie to strike there.

Attack planes don't spot at all. They however attack with an alpha hammer which rewards successful evasion of AA and rewards correct target selection/ management of recon aircraft/team spotting.

Fighter planes can be assigned to specific areas only during wait times between sorties.

 

You build your attack wing during wait time (1minute) choosing if you want to use all torp bombers or only a limited number to preserve your reserves.

 

Plane restoration still applies but only to a limited amount of total aircraft making it possible to heavily punish CVs who until the last 10minutes lost only 20 planes and suddenly lose half of the remaining allowing not even their total potential to be able to regenerate in the next 10minutes.

 

Plane controls remain the same as they are now, slingshots will not be possible anymore because you only have one single strike which will for sure go through since you use alot of planes as buffer to survive AA. You still need to aim correctly and that aim needs to be on point to make the limited amounts of strikes possible count.

 

Also make the CV have useable guns to be able to defend itself against DDs otherwise it's completely helpless against them.

 

This solves all your problems right? What it introduces back however is skillgap.

Which is even now very present. But it kills the spotting the CV provides.

 

 

 

@ApolloF117

I'm happy with the rework, it's not on me to give suggestions for improvement it's on you, another lazy way out of for you huh? No no no.

 

@El2aZeR

Just because you learned how to play the Enterprise to it's fullest doesnt mean the whole rework is "objectively" flawed and i don't believe you at all that you are able to kill 2 seattles (unicums) with torps and rockets only. We can test it together and i will stop posting anything in favor of this rework if you manage to kill my seattle while i'm next to a armed bot seattle with torps and rockets only in under 10 minutes.

 

Also pls show me again the "objective" reasons why this current version of the rework can't be tweaked to be balanced.

[anonym_RGvUdEcxWWvD]

There is only one solution. From what I see we have a overflood of CV players despite what the statistics say. I remember before the rework I saw CV once every 10 games or more. Now Im stuck with a CV almost every game. I dont buy any of the statistics. I confirmed my analyses when we had 6 CV in a game T8 some while ago. 

 

The problem is that CV are easy to play or easy to learn. I suggest to make CV alot harder to play, and I mean by ALOT, in return give us more potential dmg. This way the CV playerbase will be thinned out and we will have less tears to deal with.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I dont mean for WG to buff the AA in order to make it harder for us, but rather make the skillshots more difficult to land.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, Zlaraki said:

There is only one solution. From what I see we have a overflood of CV players despite what the statistics say. I remember before the rework I saw CV once every 10 games or more. Now Im stuck with a CV almost every game. I dont buy any of the statistics. I confirmed my analyses when we had 6 CV in a game T8 some while ago. 

 

The problem is that CV are easy to play or easy to learn. I suggest to make CV alot harder to play, and I mean by ALOT, in return give us more potential dmg. This way the CV playerbase will be thinned out and we will have less tears to deal with.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I dont mean for WG to buff the AA in order to make it harder for us, but rather make the skillshots more difficult to land.

I'm often bored, if there is not a CV in the game :D

[elblancogringo]

19 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

I so wish btw that they get back to RTS. There was less crying

 

2 minutes ago, Zlaraki said:

The funny part is that the old RTS was more broken.

RTS CVs were indeed broken as well, but very few people were playing them, which is why there was less crying.

The new CVs are wayyy more popular than the old ones. So of course, all problems that they have is magnified by the big player population that uses them.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

But again, so many of you seem convinced that the concept of a class that can always and at any given time absolutely murder any other class aside from themselves can somehow be balanced. I have yet to see a single objective argument as to why that is.

Hmmm, this is similar to arty in WoT, they do damage, cannot be avoided until the very end of the battle when ennemies are closing in.

I'm not sure it can be balanced in the way people want it, it IS unavoidable damage, and all the balance in the world will not change that. 

Is it frustrating for the opposition? hell yes.

Is it more frustrating than a light cruiser farming you behind an island in total impunity? I'd say no, at least not in the victim point of view...

There are, with all classes, ways to deal damage without being hit in return if you play with the environment. It is obviously different for the CVs as they don't need to hide, but the outcome is the same.

People want balance? I'd say we already have it somehow, it is just how to mitigate unavoidable damage. The fact everyone is affected is already a kind of balance... CV should have less HP and should not be able to move at more than 20-25 knots.

So yes, it is flawed, in the way you say it...

For me the only thing that needs balance is not their damage or the way they do their damage.

I am still convinced that CV spotting should not be shared with the rest of the team. 

[anonym_RGvUdEcxWWvD]

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

While I did tell you to l2p, I claimed that specializing for AA was broken (as in you should not need to specialize into AA to be effective against CVs).

Funnily enough specializing into AA is even more broken now because it offers pitiful returns for points invested while l2p no longer applies since what would be a safe formation back in the RTS iteration is now extremely vulnerable to reworked CVs.

 

So much for "old RTS was more broken" lol.

I think the playerbase adapted quite well. They hold hands every single game I play in. Its very difficult to find an opening nowadays, but still you cant compare it to old CV where you could easily  cross torp a DD on your first run. Another reason why old CVS were unbalanced is because of the opposition as well. A good CV player could potentialy handicap the opposing CV with fighters while today its very forgiving when you lose your planes.

[elblancogringo]

5 minutes ago, Zlaraki said:

The problem is that CV are easy to play or easy to learn. I suggest to make CV alot harder to play, and I mean by ALOT, in return give us more potential dmg. This way the CV playerbase will be thinned out and we will have less tears to deal with.

Won't happen.

Do you realise one of the main point of the rework was to make the class more accessible to the average playerbase????

[AirSupremacy]

I received a forum message death threat from a CV hater.

I looked up his past forum activity, the person was seeding anti CV hate from the beginning of the WoWs games development.

 

Warming up the airplanes, happy WoWs everyone :)

[DFens_666]

13 minutes ago, Zlaraki said:

The funny part is that the old RTS was more broken.

 

Old CVs basicly couldnt touch an AA specced Cruiser running DefAA. Even if he threw all his planes into one attack, getting a strike through was almost impossible, and the damage was minimal at best.

Now? Turn on DefAA -> CV gets a strike through. When DefAA in on CD, CV will strike again, most likely even 2 times with the same squad. And lets not forget: Its MUCH easier since there is no panic from DefAA anymore. Either it made evading easier (torpbombs) or hitting highly improbable (bombs). And he couldnt attack you again while DefAA was on CD.

[elblancogringo]

25 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

And lets not forget: Its MUCH easier since there is no panic from DefAA anymore.

That's right.

Why removing the panic effect?

Like, preventing the aiming zone to narrow, or make it much slower?

That could help, and make AA ships/specs more relevant I suppose?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 1 Minute, elblancogringo sagte:

That's right.

Why removing the panic effect?

Like, preventing the aiming zone to narrow, or make it much slower?

That could help, and make AA ships/specs more relevant I suppose?

Actually the aiming is way slower the more AA bubbles you are in during a drop and gets way slower if you try dropping through DFAA already but noone tells you that because how dare we speek about positive effects already in place.

[elblancogringo]

Just now, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Actually the aiming is way slower the more AA bubbles you are in during a drop and gets way slower if you try dropping through DFAA already but noone tells you that because how dare we speek about positive effects already in place.

ooh ok I had no clue.

THanks

[El2aZeR]

34 minutes ago, Zlaraki said:

Its very difficult to find an opening nowadays

 

 

Almost every formation that isn't 6+ ships is an opening.

 

34 minutes ago, Zlaraki said:

but still you cant compare it to old CV where you could easily  cross torp a DD on your first run.

 

Which is funny because reworked CVs either need the same time or are even faster in their initial first strike on a DD. And every subsequent strike afterwards. There is no scenario in which a higher tier reworked CV will kill slower than its RTS counterpart.

Unless ofc played by a potato, but those were never relevant anyway.

 

34 minutes ago, Zlaraki said:

Another reason why old CVS were unbalanced is because of the opposition as well. A good CV player could potentialy handicap the opposing CV with fighters while today its very forgiving when you lose your planes.

 

Which has simply been shifted from the CV to flak. Nothing has changed in that regard aside from giving skilled CV players no way to oppose each other which is to the severe detriment of surface ships.

Because a skilled CV nowadays does not need to expend effort to deny the opposing CV, he simply does it himself. You could even see that as a buff to CVs if you so wish.

 

41 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Just because you learned how to play the Enterprise to it's fullest doesnt mean the whole rework is "objectively" flawed and i don't believe you at all that you are able to kill 2 seattles (unicums) with torps and rockets only. We can test it together and i will stop posting anything in favor of this rework if you manage to kill my seattle while i'm next to a armed bot seattle with torps and rockets only in under 10 minutes.

 

I can do you one better and just send you a replay of a match yesterday in which I kill a Grozo that is being covered by a Worcester while both have DFAA enabled and lose like 6 planes total or so for it in my Midway once I get off work.

@Saiyko can confirm if replays are still broken.

 

41 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Also pls show me again the "objective" reasons why this current version of the rework can't be tweaked to be balanced.

 

1. The fundamental gameplay of the rework is built around the CV always being able to deal severe damage unless in the most extreme situations (which would be e.g. a bunch of 6+ capital ships with good AA all in one spot). This means there are no effective counterplay options to reworked CVs.

2. Reworked CVs play solely for themselves and have no true team supporting abilities. This is exacerbated by CVs being fundamentally incapable of effectively opposing each other. In what is supposed to be a team game this is unacceptable.

3. Reworked CVs have no true downsides nor limitations when played competently. Unlike their predecessors they can be anywhere at the right time if the situation calls for it, ironically giving them even higher flexibility and power. Likewise plane losses can be severely mitigated and play practically no part in their tactical play anymore. Hull survivability too has been improved to the extreme.

4. Because these are the principles reworked CV play is built upon they cannot be altered without severely compromising the rework one way or another (which is e.g. what your suggestions above would do). As such it is unfeasible to even attempt saving it, the only viable option is to scrap it completely. What happens after that is up in the air (rollback, complete removal, something entirely new etc.).