CV Rework Discussion

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Gerade eben, ApolloF117 sagte:

so u want an i-400?:D

Yes please ♡☆♡

[Uglesett]

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

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

The only time things like armour angling are relevant for CVs is if the CV player s up. Heck, they get all of the benefits of making an island their waifu but none of the disadvantages, since they have no gunnery to bother with. They can completely ignore everything that is used to balance the other classes, while having to have their own "balancing" mechanism thrown in as an afterthought. And one that is poorly implemented to boot.

 

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.

Oh, for goodness' sake. The game is built around units operating in a 2D plane with certain movement restrictions. Units that ignore all those restrictions can't work when introduced to that environment.

 

And heck, as I mentioned in a previous post, you can't even justify that from a "but muh realism" standpoint, since CVs didn't participate in surface actions. Naval battles were either air strikes, or surface battles. The only exceptions were monumental -ups from the side of the CV.

 

You can balance anything you want with enough gameplay concessions.

All right: Which concessions?

 

What do you think WG should do so that CVs are subject to the same restrictions as the other classes? What can they do so that CVs are actually affected by positioning and maneuvering? What can they do so that CVs don't completely ruin any thought of smart flanking maneuvers?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 4 Minuten, Uglesett sagte:

What do you think WG should do so that CVs are subject to the same restrictions as the other classes? What can they do so that CVs are actually affected by positioning and maneuvering? What can they do so that CVs don't completely ruin any thought of smart flanking maneuvers? 

CV privilage ☆

Get used to it ♡

[1MajorKoenig]

6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Is that all you can say after failing to show us the supposed gameplay principles of the rework, mistaking WG's goals for them instead?

 

 

Good to see you know how to separate goals from gameplay principles.

Still means you failed to show them to us.

 

Well my dear this is either way missing the point. Your “principles”  are just some subjective interpretations by your valued selve. Which would be ok unless you are basing your claim “the rework can’t be fixed” on these.

 

If you cross that bridge they should be true - which I deny based on the goals and measures WG gave. Sure you know whatever principles (if any) you adopt they need to lead you towards your goals - which are more or less known in this very case 

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

You could position it as a trade off. Leave AA manual at mediocre efficiency and manoeuvre well or take manual control of AA and spend less focus on manoeuvring with the known risks 

 

Thats not a Tradeoff.

Aircraft need but a few Seconds to Attack.

So to be any use. AA Guns in Manual will be able to eliminate the Squadron in these few Seconds.

So there is no Risks to maneuvering.

 

Either the AA Guns are accurate and strong enough to kill the Aircraft.

Then there is no Tradeoff because you spend 5 seconds to prevent 10k and more Damage.

Or they are not. Then there is no Tradeoff either cause going manual with the AA is not changing the result of the enemy Dropping at you.

[El2aZeR]

7 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well my dear this is either way missing the point. Your “principles”  are just some subjective interpretations by your valued selve. Which would be ok unless you are basing your claim “the rework can’t be fixed” on these.

 

Except without any of these gameplay principles reworked CV play as it is cannot exist. That makes them objectively true.

Take the ability to attack and deal damage in every realistic scenario for example. If that didn't exist this rework would be both incredibly inaccessible and, more importantly, unfun. Having multiple attack runs per squad likewise would be completely pointless. That means it would fail several goals you listed previously.

 

7 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

If you cross that bridge they should be true - which I deny based on the goals and measures WG gave.

 

Which mean jack since WG has outright lied to our face at pretty much every turn.

And please, this isn't your personal interpretation?

37 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

- reduce the impact of having two not equally skilled CV players facing each other (which was unfortunately coined as “skillgap” which is not necessarily the problem itself but the term was used)

 

Because WG certainly hasn't said that. They now claim the skill gap is something entirely different and it has been precisely that what they meant all along.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Because WG certainly hasn't said that. They now claim the skill gap is something entirely different and it has been precisely that what they meant all along.

 

They used the term when we talked about the rework but it is not a good term to describe the actual problem. Did they really go back on this ? 

 

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Take the ability to attack and deal damage in every realistic scenario for example.

 

This is however not a principle but a logical consequence from removing any meaningful alpha strike. Which comes back to the goal “decrease impact of a good CV player”. If your Torpedo does a stunning 2500 Damage - do you still want to prevent it from being dropped? It’s all part of making things less “hit or miss”.

[MRGTB]

1 hour ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

But we already got an Enterprise captain.

I think you missed my pun. Do you watch Star Trek? 

[1MajorKoenig]

22 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

What do you think WG should do so that CVs are subject to the same restrictions as the other classes? 

 

I don’t share the opinion that CVs need to share the same restrictions. Why making all things perfectly uniform? Make destroyers as slow as BBs? 

 

What I meant is that any real characteristic can be translated into different game mechanics to portray it. You can use that to shape your overall game model - which is just that: a model roughly portraying Naval battles in a highly condensed and bent way. 

 

So rather than pressing all classes into the same pattern you look at what your problems are and create mechanics to solve these.

 

Example: a small ship wouldn’t stand a chance against a BB so WG created this wonky BB dispersion. 

Or: small shells do negligible damage to big ships so WG came up with fires and IFHE. And so on.

 

Now: if spotting is your issue you could easily create different solutions for that - some possibilities I mentioned above. There may be plenty ore if you think about it further. Same for the DD CV interaction which is one of the frequently brought up issues (which is partially linked to the other topic).

Again there are multiple ways to solve it.

 

But That doesn’t make CVs impossible to balance.

[El2aZeR]

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Did they really go back on this ? 

 

Yes.

Hilarious, I know.

 

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

This is however not a principle but a logical consequence from removing any meaningful alpha strike.

 

On the contrary locking out alpha strike is a logical consequence of the rework being based upon single squadron gameplay with multiple attack runs which are gameplay principles.

And because you only have a single squadron with multiple attack runs that squadron has to be able to deal damage in any realistic scenario, otherwise there is no point in single squadron gameplay nor multiple attack runs. It has absolutely nothing to do with tempering the impact of skilled CV players, no measure WG has taken so far had that goal in mind.

[Uglesett]

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I don’t share the opinion that CVs need to share the same restrictions. Why making all things perfectly uniform? Make destroyers as slow as BBs? 

Now you're just being dense.

 

Nobody's saying that ships of different classes should have the same stats.

 

But the other three classes are all balanced within a framework of parameters that CVs elegantly ignore. E.g. aircraft are not subject to anywhere near the same limitations of acceleration and turn rate that ships are.

 

Quote

What I meant is that any real characteristic can be translated into different game mechanics to portray it. You can use that to shape your overall game model - which is just that: a model roughly portraying Naval battles in a highly condensed and bent way.

The model that WG have designed is centered around surface ships operating in a 2D plane with movement and gunnery restricted by terrain. Aircraft operating in 3D and ignoring terrain don't fit into that game model. 

 

Quote

So rather than pressing all classes into the same pattern you look at what your problems are and create mechanics to solve these.

That would basically need "World of Warships 2". A lot of fundamental mechanics aren't designed with aircraft in mind. 

 

Quote

Example: a small ship wouldn’t stand a chance against a BB so WG created this wonky BB dispersion. 

 

Or: small shells do negligible damage to big ships so WG came up with fires and IFHE. And so on.

 

And all of these are smaller design decisions which fit within the overarching design of the game.

[AirSupremacy]

Planes move up and down as they fly above the terrain

and submarines use the depth under water.

13 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

...The model that WG have designed is centered around surface ships operating in a 2D plane with movement and gunnery restricted by terrain. Aircraft operating in 3D and ignoring terrain don't fit into that game model.  ...
 

1

The old RTS system is still in the game, even the target reticules are painted in the map screen.

I found the old view system of basically playing in the map little immersive and requiring less skill.

I used to play that CV mode on a second screen during work as a minigame, it was also great to cook food as the game was running.

 

IMHO I would never like to go back tot he old RTS minigame display view,

for me that's like comparing Tetris with Counterstrike.

[Uglesett]

3 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Planes move up and down as they fly above the terrain

and submarines use the depth under water.

Yes, and neither is a good fit within the basic framework of the game.

IMHO I would never like to go back tot he old RTS minigame display view

But if the rework had never happened, would you have had a problem with it?

 

Personally, I wasn't interested in playing the RTS cvs. But I didn't mind playing against them, which is the important part. 

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Just what I thought - not a single good reason. Oh dear where to start:

 

- so yo can’t “evade” a CV attack? Of course you can evade. Not each and every strike but you can’t eveade all shells in any other ship either 

 

- “only Auto AA” - same General issue as old version but do you have Auto defense against incoming BB shells? No...? But I give you that the AA system sucks balls and is in need of a complete rework. But nevertheless - it’s not “the rework” either

 

- either way none of the above is “inherent to the rework” hence this “can’t be balanced” fairy tale is just  that (more of a “I want something else” fairy tale)

 

and once and for all - the old RTS system wasn’t any better. It was just that nobody gave a damn because nobody played it 

 

1.

At least Decide if you want to claim you can Evade or if you Admit you cant Evade it.

 

2.

Actually thats Factually Incorrect. Because DDs can indeed Avoid Enemy Hits entirely if they are Skilled enough. Thats their whole Ninja Setting after all.

If they are Spotted they Failed.  And Even Cruiser do very Good on staying out of BB Guns Angles.

 

But the bigger Issue here is something you neglect to mention.

If I decide to Enter a Battle with an Enemy Ship and thus Voluntarily Enter into a Position where I will no longer be able to Avoid Enemy Fire.

Then this is Usually because I want to Hit the Enemy Ship as well.

 

Only DDs can Effectively Attack without Risking Damage themselves.

And their Attacks unlike the ones of a CV can be 100% evaded.

 

All Ships in the Game. Can only Guarantee Damage on Enemy Ships if they Risk being Damaged themselves.

With one Exception. That Exception is the CV. Which currently can Guarantee Damage to all Ships in the Battle while not taking even the slightest Risk himself.

 

3.

Thats also Wrong.

In the Old System due to the Aircraft being AI Controlled and only under Limited Control. It was in Fact Possible to Evade them entirely if you were skilled enough.

Moreover as the Enemy only had One Drop on you per Attack. If he Missed that Attack he went out Empty.

Of course in Exchange if he Succeeded the Damage was much Bigger.

Moreover your own CV had Fighters. You had Fighters. And Cruisers had AA Abilities.

All of which would not only Intercept and actually Prevent Bombing Runs. But would also Enforce a Harsh Accuracy Penalty making Hits almost Impossible.

None of that is Possible in the current System.

As CVs have no more Control over their Fighters after Spawning them. And as CVs Control their Squadron Manually and thus are not forced to follow a certain drop pattern due to AI Controlled Bombers. Interception is Impossible.

Thats why AA is now the only thing that Matters. And thats the Problem.

 

4.

Well Mate.

I did Offer you Clearly did I not.

If you have an Idea to Balance it Properly. Share it.

I am all Ears for Suggestions.

So far. I do have alot of Ideas that would make the old RTS System Work.

And the old RTS System actually had far less Flaws then the Current one.

 

But I am always open for new Ideas.

So far you claim that its a Fairy Tale. But you have not yet provided even the slightest hint of a counterargument :)

[AirSupremacy]

33 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Yes, and neither is a good fit within the basic framework of the game.

 

But if the rework had never happened, would you have had a problem with it?

 

Personally, I wasn't interested in playing the RTS cvs. But I didn't mind playing against them, which is the important part. 

Dear Uglesett, I find the framework for the game very good. I did a 1-year pause from WoWs, waiting for day 1 of the CV rework.

If the CV rework ( or adding Submarines to the game ) would have not happened I would have added more years to my WoWs pause. I also find the CV rework great fun by playing Non-CV ships.

 

Good CV players IMHO will always have this priority:

- Sink the fattest or all BB`s

- What is on the way to the BB`s...Have a snack here and there

- Good CV`s always monitor the entire team situation and what is affordable to reach a win and/or create large damage

- Whining, crying or insulting players do not get further in-game support resources.

 

I would never request to have a "BB rework" in the way that BB`s, or any other ship class, from now on only play in the map view.

I do hope that WG adds Submarines rather in this year, it will be another process of players adapting to new challenges.

 

Happy WoWs ;)

 

 

 

[Uglesett]

8 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Dear Uglesett, I find the framework for the game very good.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Nobody saying the basic design of the game is bad. Just that it's not built with units operating in three dimensions in mind.

 

Quote

Good CV players IMHO will always have this priority:

- Sink the fattest or all BB`s
- What is on the way to the BB`s, have a snack here and there
- CV always monitor the entire team situation and what is affordable to reach a win and/or damage

What on earth does this have to do with whether aircraft fit into the game design or not?

 

Quote

I would never request to have a "BB rework" in the way that BB`s, on any other ship class, from now on only play in the map view.

And why on earth would this in any way make sense?

 

Battleships, like the other ship classes, work perfectly well within the basic design of the game. They are subject to exactly the same design restrictions in terms of movement, line of sight, gunnery and ballistics as the other classes. There's absolutely no reason to make them different.

 

The entire point is that CVs already are different, and they always will be, whereas the other classes actually fit into the base design of the game.

[Hugh_Ruka]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

- “only Auto AA” - same General issue as old version but do you have Auto defense against incoming BB shells? No...? But I give you that the AA system sucks balls and is in need of a complete rework. But nevertheless - it’s not “the rework” either

Except that in the old system there were effective fighters, the CVs could affect each other. Not anymore ...

DFAA was also a major factor in the old system in effectively scattering the drop. Not anymore ...

 

Do you need more refreshment of your memory ?

[AirSupremacy]

2 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Nobody saying the basic design of the game is bad. Just that it's not built with units operating in three dimensions in mind. 

 

What on earth does this have to do with whether aircraft fit into the game design or not?

 

And why on earth would this in any way make sense?

 

Battleships, like the other ship classes, work perfectly well within the basic design of the game. They are subject to exactly the same design restrictions in terms of movement, line of sight, gunnery and ballistics as the other classes. There's absolutely no reason to make them different.

 

The entire point is that CVs already are different, and they always will be, whereas the other classes fit into the base design of the game.

The base dimensional design of the CV rework is 3D, before the CV rework it was 3D for DD, CA & BB classes ( flying shells with 3D height ).

What is your suggestion ? To not have WG work on the 3D Engine any further ?

 

CV`s are part of the game, IMHO Submarines will follow by or in 2020.

Wishing you a nice time in WoWs :)

[Hugh_Ruka]

2 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

The base dimensional design of the CV rework is 3D, before the CV rework it was 3D for DD, CA & BB classes ( flying shells with 3D height ).

What is your suggestion ? To not have WG work on the 3D Engine any further ?

 

CV`s are part of the game, IMHO Submarines will follow by or in 2020.

Wishing you a nice time in WoWs :)

No ship can move in 3D. torps are fully 2D as you cannot change the running depth, just the lead. gunfire is 70% controlled by the game, the player just controlls the lead and to a little extend elevation of the guns.

 

aircraft on the other hand can fly above terrain unrestricted (torps cannot, guns to a limited extend dictated by their stats that you cannot change). hiding behind solid cover makes you safe from all ships except planes that simply fly above the cover and attack you from the other side. positioning means nothing against a CV ....

[Toivia]

2 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

The base dimensional design of the CV rework is 3D, before the CV rework it was 3D for DD, CA & BB classes ( flying shells with 3D height ).

What is your suggestion ? To not have WG work on the 3D Engine any further ?

 

CV`s are part of the game, IMHO Submarines will follow by or in 2020.

Wishing you a nice time in WoWs :)

You're confusing movement in 3D and trajectory that uses height. You cannot at any point steer your ship or plane at any different height than it is already.

Any change in height of planes or any ordnance is based on rigid paths programmed into the game, ie dive bombing a target, firing shells from a BB, recalling planes to the CV or flying over terrain. All those things happen automatically depending on where you are, where you aim, etc. You cannot change them. You can't decide that you want to lauch plane torps from a higher altitude, you cannot choose to fire your AP shells higher to clear the island in front, etc.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Ok, how did we get from rd to 2d again? ☆

What does any of that have to do with WOWS xD ♡

 

 

[Uglesett]

5 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

The base dimensional design of the CV rework is 3D, before the CV rework it was 3D for DD, CA & BB classes ( flying shells with 3D height ).

What is your suggestion ? To not have WG work on the 3D Engine any further ?

The base design is for units moving in a 2D plane, with line of sight, ballistics and movement restrictions determined by 3D terrain geometry.

 

3D movement  breaks these limitations by basically removing the limitation on line of sight and ballistics.

 

My best suggestion would be to get a TARDIS, travel back in time and explain to the devs just how bad the idea is to include CVs in the game. Unfortunately that one has some practical limitations. Beyond that, a reversion to the much less bad implementation of the RTS version would be preferable. Or finally the suggestion I posted earlier in this thread. 

[AirSupremacy]

Glad there is a nice ongoing discussion on 2D, 3D and whatnot.

I`m warming up the airplanes again :) Here comes the sky !

 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 6 Minuten, AirSupremacy sagte:

Glad there is a nice ongoing discussion on 2D, 3D and whatnot.

I`m warming up the airplanes again :) Here comes the sky !

 

Good luck, i will continue with some light hearted forum PVP for you ☆♡☆

[AirSupremacy]

3 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Good luck, i will continue with some light hearted forum PVP for you ☆♡☆

Thank you.

May the force be always with you,

L0V3_and_PE4CE