CV Rework Discussion

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 2 Minuten, Panocek sagte:

Knowing WG it will be exactly that.

 

Other than that... dunno, directional AA? As in only 25% dps forward, but 100% when broadside. Ideally would be setting LoS/firing arcs for each AA gun, but considering sheer amount of them multiplied by amount of ships... sounds like perfect penal job for misbehaving developer

It will be just an interface thing.

 

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

4 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Sorry - what I meant was: you have your opinion, others have other opinions. Not that the majority shares yours - it looks like the playerbase is pretty much divided over this 

 

But anyway: AA is in need of some rework if we want to call it like that. More interaction would be good !

Well, clicking on a squadron was basically RNG with a boost. Clicking on a zone seems equally weak from an interaction perspective.

 

I'm interested to see what WG think they can do to give back the feel of 'manual AA' (albeit still RNG exercise), or the interaction many people seem to want. I fear for some people 'AA interaction falls into two categories:

 

CV: I expect to avoid and and all flak or continuous damage.

BB/CA: I expect to wipe out sqdns at the click of a button.

 

Finding the middle ground should be fun and not terribly engaging.

 

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

8 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

It will be just an interface thing.

 

This is a horrifying thought. It's a clunky and one dimensional interface as is, with poor implementation and unreliable function.

 

I shudder at the thought of a multi zoned interface. Surely, there's something more dynamic or involved than just shifting firepower from zone to zone.

 

That said, I'm not sure clicking on squadrons is a great deal more engaging or effective.

 

Sadly, unless whatever they implement gives people a 'melts incoming planes' effect it'll be criticised, and the fact that planes have melted will ensure it's hated by the CV mains too.

 

All hideously binary. Both in terms of expectation and interaction.

[Sunleader]

18 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Sorry - what I meant was: you have your opinion, others have other opinions. Not that the majority shares yours - it looks like the playerbase is pretty much divided over this 

 

But anyway: AA is in need of some rework if we want to call it like that. More interaction would be good !

 

I am simply claiming that it is due to seeing responses and topics on this.

WGs neefing spree on CVs also speaks for that.

 

But fine.

If we can agree that the current system needs to be changed thats at least something.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Knowing WG it will be exactly that.

 

Other than that... dunno, directional AA? As in only 25% dps forward, but 100% when broadside. Ideally would be setting LoS/firing arcs for each AA gun, but considering sheer amount of them multiplied by amount of ships... sounds like perfect penal job for misbehaving developer

 

Hope dies last.

 

10 minutes ago, WynnZeroOne said:

Well, clicking on a squadron was basically RNG with a boost. Clicking on a zone seems equally weak from an interaction perspective.

 

I'm interested to see what WG think they can do to give back the feel of 'manual AA' (albeit still RNG exercise), or the interaction many people seem to want. I fear for some people 'AA interaction falls into two categories:

 

CV: I expect to avoid and and all flak or continuous damage.

BB/CA: I expect to wipe out sqdns at the click of a button.

 

Finding the middle ground should be fun and not terribly engaging.

 

 

In the old System.

The Interaction happened on the Evasion and Dropping.

 

Drop even if done Manually had a preset and had to be done in anticipation.

You could not correct or adjust it after it was initiated.

And accuracy was ruined by Defensive Consumables.

 

Thanks to that there was an Interactive reaction possible.

 

 

With the current System it will be extremely hard or even impossible to archieve a middle ground.

Which is why the statement of a *full redesign* gives me a little hope.

 

Tough its not much....

[Culiacan_Mexico]

World of AA guns.  

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I admit I hated the lack of interaction with the old system.

 

While the old AA system didn't offer much interaction, at least it did its job of denying strikes, making you capable of actually punishing CVs.

The new AA system doesn't do that unless the enemy CV is bad.

[gunner2505]

Old CVs back !!!!!!

Like me are a lot of players out there that dont like this rework .

I have spent a lot of time in grinding and experiencing RTS style , i researched bouth Lexington and Shokaku and i liked them.

-I liked RTS because was multitasking that makes players learn and improve their skills .

-Now it is like go drop ,drop drop again and return and go again plus now planes are endless.

-Game missed airsuperiority concept that was very important , now a cv cant help other ships or devastate enemy ships . 

-In a 1v1 u are dead only if enemy is a DD U CAN SURVIVE

-On low tiers u do nothing but just go around and hit enemys with paper.

-CVs now are not competent and canot carry like old ones.

 

Now time i spent in game is very low because i dont like play CVs anymore , i just play it because i have a Iowa that i like playing.

 

[MRGTB]

30 minutes ago, gunner2505 said:

Like me are a lot of players out there that dont like this rework .

But you know, I reckon more people actually prefer the new CV rework (for playing CV) over the old RTS style.

 

My 2 cents..

 

That said. I do question if they should have capped plane numbers the same way RTS did, so a CV can run out of planes. If they did that there wouldn't be that much difference between RTS and the current new CV rework - seeing as you can still drop attack aircraft to kill enemy planes while protecting your own planes using them right now. The only real difference is RTS had a cap limit on planes, while the new CV rework doesn't. But the GUI graphics and being more involved playing in the game (and not being point and click on a map all the time like RTS) is far better now. So just put a cap limit on planes and you basically have RTS style of play with better graphics and gameplay involvement.

 

But it seems obvious the reason why they removed the capped plane limit though. When a CV runs out of planes they are good for doing nothing for the remainder of the match. No point them even being it in any further, they might as well just "self destruct" once having no planes left. So you can see why WG removed that plane limit cap for.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

48 minutes ago, TheScarletPimpernel said:

But you know, I reckon more people actually prefer the new CV rework (for playing CV) over the old RTS style.

 

My 2 cents..

So the average player is being asked whether they prefer being disemboweled or flayed?  

 

Perhaps they would prefer a third option.

[Toivia]

1 hour ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

So the average player is being asked whether they prefer being disemboweled or flayed?  

 

Perhaps they would prefer a third option.

If disemboweled means RTS, I'll take one disembowelment please.

 

While I was atrocious in RTS CVs, I still liked playing them far more than playing these "action CVs". It was a good way to slow the gameplay down, now everything is even more hectic than before.

[El2aZeR]

Darn, wanted to show you guys a replay where I just  all over a bunched up div (Mino, Moskva, Monty).

Then I saw that for some reason my WoWs hasn't been recording replays for two weeks. No wonder my MM monitor refuses to work. Off topic, but anyone know how to fix that? It's no longer the preferences.xml stuff it seems (in fact that file doesn't seem to do anthing at all anymore).

 

@Saiyko was there as well tho, maybe he can share.

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

6 hours ago, Sunleader said:

In the old System.

The Interaction happened on the Evasion and Dropping.

 

Drop even if done Manually had a preset and had to be done in anticipation.

You could not correct or adjust it after it was initiated.

And accuracy was ruined by Defensive Consumables.

 

Thanks to that there was an Interactive reaction possible.

 

 

With the current System it will be extremely hard or even impossible to archieve a middle ground.

Which is why the statement of a *full redesign* gives me a little hope.

 

Tough its not much....

 

Well, I'm glad we agree it needs changing.

 

Sadly, all these public tests and still no sign of defensive consumables offering any interaction with the incoming attack.

 

Are you saying there should be more options to interact with incoming planes? 'd like to see a 'make smoke' option that doesn't conceal ships, but has the impact of reduced visibility from above, subject to the ships movement (we don't have wind do we?) and has a negative effect on the accuracy/sigma. It's would still be a limited use consumable, would require and create a more dynamic interaction, but is more effective against DB's than TB's due to attack altitude.

 

I'd also like to be able to assign fighters to escort either my flight, or a ship of my choice like in RTS. Albeit, fighters would need to actually work.

[Sunleader]

40 minutes ago, WynnZeroOne said:

 

Well, I'm glad we agree it needs changing.

 

Sadly, all these public tests and still no sign of defensive consumables offering any interaction with the incoming attack.

 

Are you saying there should be more options to interact with incoming planes? 'd like to see a 'make smoke' option that doesn't conceal ships, but has the impact of reduced visibility from above, subject to the ships movement (we don't have wind do we?) and has a negative effect on the accuracy/sigma. It's would still be a limited use consumable, would require and create a more dynamic interaction, but is more effective against DB's than TB's due to attack altitude.

 

I'd also like to be able to assign fighters to escort either my flight, or a ship of my choice like in RTS. Albeit, fighters would need to actually work.

 

Short Answer. Yes.

I would like to have more Options of Interaction.

To be precise I want Counter Gameplay Options. So wether or not a CV is able to deal Significant damage depends on skill and gameplay decisions between him and his target.

 

Long Answer. Not exactly.

Because I dont think we can get it with the current system.

 

As stated before. I do not think that the current System can be salvaged.

So either a Rollback or an entirely New System Rework needs to be done.

 

An actually Interactive AA would be one Option for such a Rework.

But getting such a System balanced is extremely hard.

Other Options are to handle it like with Squadrons and provide additiinal AA skills to Ships which got very low Cooldown similar to Fighters on CV.

Or to get a Manual Heavy AA System where the Player can provide AA Fire himself.

 

One way would also be to effectively turn them into Artillery similar to WoT.

By removing the Ability to spot with Aircraft entirely.

So a CV can only either Attack Blind.

Or Attack Targets Spotted by the Team.

 

 

Each of these would of course require an massive rework of the whole System.

 

 

 

 

 

Now if we talk about stopgap measures to improve the current situation.

There we got a few simpler ways.

 

Making Fighters actually work by setting them to Intercept the closest Bo.ber within 10km Range upon spawning.

Thus them being more of a one time active defense rather than a 1 minute trap.

 

Having accuracy of Bomb Drops depend on the intensity of AA Fire and add an extra penalty when attacked by Active AA from Consumable or if attacked by Fighters.

 

Remove the Unlimited Aircraft Resupply of Carriers so that they have a Reason to not waste Aircraft by Bombing into fleet formations despite the heavy AA coverage.

And also so they have an incentive to break off Attacks to save their Planes.

 

 

 

These would not fix the problem.

But I do believe they would at least improve the situation.

[El2aZeR]

51 minutes ago, WynnZeroOne said:

Sadly, all these public tests and still no sign of defensive consumables offering any interaction with the incoming attack.

 

Because that isn't possible with the current iteration. If you only have one squad that squad has to be able to attack and deal damage regardless of circumstance. There is no point in single squadron gameplay otherwise.

 

That is also why this

51 minutes ago, WynnZeroOne said:

I'd also like to be able to assign fighters to escort either my flight, or a ship of my choice like in RTS. Albeit, fighters would need to actually work.

cannot happen.

 

The current CV rework automatically excludes any kind of shutdown counterplay, hence why it is fundamentally flawed.

[Yamato942]

As much as i can see if they want to maintain 10% or even more of cv players WG need to keep CV op as is, which is hell for surface ships. I mean, only fun that i finding these days in cv is pure power. I dont like new gameplay of cvs, its repetative attack,attack attack, no multitasking, no tactic, no risk, just a simple drop as much crap on enemys as you can. The only fun that cv can provide now is ruining surface ship fun and nothing else, if WG overnerf CVs to not be possible to be god in cv, i will be happy and will not play cv anymore and the cv playerbase will be again 2% or even less. CV now can be compared to Stalingrad and future Slava(Pobeda) as only fun that can provide is pure OP and nothing else.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 4 Minuten, Yamato942 sagte:

As much as i can see if they want to maintain 10% or even more of cv players WG need to keep CV op as is, which is hell for surface ships. I mean, only fun that i finding these days in cv is pure power. I dont like new gameplay of cvs, its repetative attack,attack attack, no multitasking, no tactic, no risk, just a simple drop as much crap on enemys as you can. The only fun that cv can provide now is ruining surface ship fun and nothing else, if WG overnerf CVs to not be possible to be god in cv, i will be happy and will not play cv anymore and the cv playerbase will be again 2% or even less. CV now can be compared to Stalingrad and future Slava(Pobeda) as only fun that can provide is pure OP and nothing else.

Well obviously everybody has a sifferent sense of fun.

Do you think people who barely manage 50% winrate in CV think it's fun because the class is OP? For those the class is a challenge and is fun because of the non stop action compared to slower play of all other ship classes.

Even if they nerf CV to do less damage it will still retain players because of these differences in peoples tastes.

 

Don't generalize others because it's unthinkable for yourself. the world would be quite boring if everyone had the same tastes.

[Yamato942]

14 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Well obviously everybody has a sifferent sense of fun.

Do you think people who barely manage 50% winrate in CV think it's fun because the class is OP? For those the class is a challenge and is fun because of the non stop action compared to slower play of all other ship classes.

Even if they nerf CV to do less damage it will still retain players because of these differences in peoples tastes.

 

Don't generalize others because it's unthinkable for yourself. the world would be quite boring if everyone had the same tastes.

Look what i bold for you, the guys who are bad in cv are very easy deplaned and cant have that non stop action, after  couple of attack they can only watch empty deck. But beacuse of that average empty deck viewers CV is op now for us better players. CV as a special class should be balanced around unicums and not average potato, its should be that bad cv player cant do more then 50k dmg, and unicums do 100-150k dmg and not like this, where everyone can do 50k+  dmg and unicums do 200-300k dmg.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 27 Minuten, Yamato942 sagte:

Look what i bold for you, the guys who are bad in cv are very easy deplaned and cant have that non stop action, after  couple of attack they can only watch empty deck. But beacuse of that average empty deck viewers CV is op now for us better players. CV as a special class should be balanced around unicums and not average potato, its should be that bad cv player cant do more then 50k dmg, and unicums do 100-150k dmg and not like this, where everyone can do 50k+  dmg and unicums do 200-300k dmg.

That's not true.

I would ping @ATH67

Maybe if he has some time he can tell you why he finda them fun to play. he is a friend and clan commander of my previous clan with a ton of experience. He dislikes the current CVs but playing them he finds engageing and fun.

 

Also where are you getting the 200k + numbers from?If you look at Midway stats only 2 people even reach that high on average.

Most are actually in your proposed 150k range lol. Also plenty of bad players below 50k so what are you talking about?!

 

Oh pardon me it's 3 unicums above 200k right now which will get lower with the 8.4 nerfs.

[WarburtonLee]

What i dont like at all with the rework is that it seems there are no consistancy in shooting down planes. Sometimes i wipe squadrons left and right, and other times i dont shoot down a single plane. Doesnt seem to matter much which ship im playing. One game i shoot down 50 planes in a non-aa specced moskva, next game my Des moines seems to shoot with blanks or something....

[Yamato942]

41 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

That's not true.

I would ping @ATH67

Maybe if he has some time he can tell you why he finda them fun to play. he is a friend and clan commander of my previous clan with a ton of experience. He dislikes the current CVs but playing them he finds engageing and fun.

 

Also where are you getting the 200k + numbers from?If you look at Midway stats only 2 people even reach that high on average.

Most are actually in your 150k range lol. Also plenty of bad players below 50k so what are you talking about?!

The main problem of that low average dmg of me (145k) and even better cv  (200k?) players is that when you are that good you often win very fast, you know matches when team collapse fast and its like 15:5 very fast, well good cv alone create that match very fast, and then no time to farm dmg. The thing is, I in couple of last days when im in Midway i tend to leave enemy dds alive so they can kill somebody in my team or cap some points and doing so buy me more time for match so i can play midway longer and farm more. Let i explain you like this, if i go in any cap and kill dd, and then go other cap and also kill, or spot other dd, they will lose all caps and lose points for dead dds, and from there end of match is not far, since that alone make huge advantage, thats why best cvs dont attack dds anymore, they just farm bbs and cruisers. Real average dmg would be much higher if teams dont die that fast, in others class its not so important since you cant be close to all enemy at same time, for exemple if good Montana players kill all on one flank he will need a lot of time to be on other flank so he anyways cant farm more even if he have 5min more to do that, for CV thats not a problem since whole map is cv playground. In short: When you do like 200k dmg in cv you are countering yourself, beacuse you gona win too fast and then no more dmg to do. Real average dmg which you cant see will be if match was 20min but deathmatch mode, so cv can farm every last one of enemy, because good cv players in this rework have problem as all huricane bravo troll teams have when they meet some poor souls in gale league, its simple the match is too short to have fun.

[159Hunter]

On 5/16/2019 at 6:36 AM, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

WG isn't wrong. 5 k higher spotting on average is insignificant and it will be even lower, i suspect it will get 10k lower after 8.4 patch.

You seem to not understand.

You don't seem to understand that WG wanted to lower the spotting and they didn't. Ergo: rework failed on that part.

On 5/16/2019 at 6:36 AM, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

The argument of active spotting is the biggest nonsense i ever read. It's passive. But you keep your delusions for however long you want them.

At least we know now what WGs views are and that you won't get what you are screaming for, which is isolated spotting or removal of CVs

Ofc it's active: you choose where you go and spot. 

Now please show me where I said CVs should be removed, unlike you (CV apologist) I have a more balanced view. 

On 5/16/2019 at 7:00 AM, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

AA is not rng. It's consistent dps damage to planes. Sometimes planes die faster depending on the CV players skill to dodge the flak clouds.

So flak is not RNG? I thought you actually played CVs?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 12 Minuten, 159Hunter sagte:

So flak is not RNG? I thought you actually played CVs?

Flak is not rng, it has a hitrate which can make it a shotgun spread actually being a benefit since it will lead to some clouds touching your planes even while dodging.

I actually never played CV btw ☆

 

I won't argue about spotting anymore either, said what needed to be said you can diagree all you like i don't care anymore.

[MCOOCM]

Hello!!!

 

Pls check this you tube link and adv why this is even possible as you allready nerfed the AA in game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGdlduT97hY

[1MajorKoenig]

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Because that isn't possible with the current iteration. If you only have one squad that squad has to be able to attack and deal damage regardless of circumstance

 

And here we disagree. Your unit doesn’t need to be able to deal damage in any given situation. Other classes are the same. There are situations where you are in an unfavourable position. 

 

That you are able to defeat AA ships is in my opinion not a proof that CVs in general can. A good player will always be able to defeat others even in unfavourable situations. There shouldn’t rellay be auto-win and auto-lose Situations. There should be advantageous and disadvantageous situations but player skill should still be able to make the differnce. 

 

Btw. Are you using exploits such as slingshot in your example? Because these will likely be fixed sooner or later (same as this stupid fighter exploit).

[1MajorKoenig]

4 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

You don't seem to understand that WG wanted to lower the spotting and they didn't. Ergo: rework failed on that part.

 

Apparently they did. At least that’s what came out of the numbers the other guy posted - forgot who that was